linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] checkpatch: add dedicated checker for 'Fixes:' tag

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0bded90c-cc66-bd12-7192-4bd75e72f678@web.de>
Date:   Mon, 27 Apr 2020 18:50:21 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Wang YanQing <udknight@...il.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] checkpatch: add dedicated checker for 'Fixes:' tag

> According to submitting-patches.rst, …

I find that the reference to this document can trigger further considerations
also for this evolving change description.

> "
> Do not split the tag across multiple
> lines, tags are exempt from the "wrap at 75 columns" rule in order to simplify
> parsing scripts
> "

Can it be nicer to use typographic quotation characters together with ellipses?

> And the current 'Fixes:' checker in "# Check for git id commit length and
> improperly formed commit descriptions" doesn't check for invalid commit id

Should this “link” refer to a known check name?

> length, so this patch adds dedicated checker to fix these issues.

Would you care to transform this information into an imperative wording?

…
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -2820,7 +2820,7 @@ sub process {
…
> -		      $line !~ /\bfixes:\s*[0-9a-f]{12,40}/i))) {
> +		      $line !~ /^\s*fixes:\s*(?:[0-9a-f]{6,40})\s*(?:.*)/i))) {

I guess that the clarification around the relevance of word boundaries
will become also more interesting.

Will it become relevant to check if a provided change identification
can actually be resolved to the desired commit?

> @@ -2979,6 +2979,13 @@ sub process {
…
> +				ERROR("FIXES_TAG",
> +					"please use the 'Fixes:' tag with at least the first 12 characters of the SHA-1 ID, and the one line summary(no across multiple lines)\n" . $herecurr);

* How do you think about to start this message with the word “Please”?

* Is the text “summary(no across” still questionable?

* Will there be a need to explicitly describe the data format
  for the summary specification also at this place?

Regards,
Markus