linux-kernel - Re: clean up kernel_{read,write} & friends v2

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

Date:   Thu, 28 May 2020 20:57:06 +0200
From:   Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        NetFilter <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: clean up kernel_{read,write} & friends v2

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:53 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:40 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
> >
> > this series fixes a few issues and cleans up the helpers that read from
> > or write to kernel space buffers, and ensures that we don't change the
> > address limit if we are using the ->read_iter and ->write_iter methods
> > that don't need the changed address limit.
>
> Apart from the "please don't mix irrelevant whitespace changes with
> other changes" comment, this looks fine to me.
>
> And a rant related to that change: I'm really inclined to remove the
> checkpatch check for 80 columns entirely, but it shouldn't have been
> triggering for old lines even now.
>
> Or maybe make it check for something more reasonable, like 100 characters.
>
> I find it ironic and annoying how "checkpatch" warns about that silly
> legacy limit, when checkpatch itself then on the very next few lines
> has a line that is 124 columns wide
>
> And yes, that 124 character line has a good reason for it. But that's
> kind of the point. There are lots of perfectly fine reasons for longer
> lines.
>
> I'd much rather check for "no deep indentation" or "no unnecessarily
> complex conditionals" or other issues that are more likely to be
> _real_ problems.  But do we really have 80x25 terminals any more that
> we'd care about?
>

Please kill that 80-columns-checkpatch-rule for more human-readability of code.

- Sedat -