linux-kernel - Re: Re: Re: checkpatch: support deprecated terms checking

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:   Sun, 26 Jul 2020 09:18:25 +0200
From:   SeongJae Park <sj38.park@...il.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     SeongJae Park <sj38.park@...il.com>,
        Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>,
        "SeongJae Park" <sjpark@...zon.com>,
        "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, apw@...onical.com,
        colin.king@...onical.com, jslaby@...e.cz, pavel@....cz,
        "SeongJae Park" <sjpark@...zon.de>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: checkpatch: support deprecated terms checking

On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 21:27:07 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 2020-07-26 at 01:35 +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 10:29:23 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sat, 2020-07-25 at 15:02 +0200, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > 
> > > > I see that this patch went into next and is already inciting people to
> > > > do wrong things [1]. Can you please fix it to require '--subjective'
> > > > switch or otherwise mark it clearly as suggestion-only?
> > > > 
> > > > The coding-style as in Linus' master says about *NEW* uses of the words
> > > > listed (those introductions I expect to be actually rare) and not about
> > > > existing use in the code or industry. Making a noise about all uses
> > > > found surely will generate a lot more irrelevant patches.
> > > > 
> > > > [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-tegra/msg51849.html
> > > 
> > > And if not reverted, perhaps do not check existing files
> > > at all but only check patches and change the message to
> > > show only suggestions not from a specification.
> > 
> > Agreed for this case.  However, excluding existing file check doesn't fully
> > avoid this problem.  Also, more terms having different deprecation rules might
> > be added in future.  How about allowing file check but show reference in the
> > suggestion message as below?
> 
> The general problem is that drivers/staging, net/ and drivers/net
> all have --strict on by default.
> 
> Emitting these deprecated terms messages with -f --file uses for
> files in those directories isn't a great idea.

Thank you for kindly explaining your concenrs in detail.  However, I think it's
ok to do this check even without '--strict' for files if we explicitly says
it's suggestion only, as Michal said.  My patch does so.

> 
> > diff --git a/scripts/deprecated_terms.txt b/scripts/deprecated_terms.txt
> []
> > @@ -3,8 +3,10 @@
> >  # The format of each line is:
> >  # deprecated||suggested
> >  #
> > +# If special rules are applied on the terms, please comment those.
> 
> Disagree.  Comments about these existing uses aren't helpful.

Sorry, I don't understand your point here.  Why do you think it's not helpful?
If 'checkpatch' finds the deprecated terms, it will ask people to read this
file, which explains special rules for each of the deprecations if exists.  The
rule is, in the case of 'slave', 'applies to new uses only'.  Therefore, people
could stop sending the noisy unnecessary patches to the maintainers.


Thanks,
SeongJae Park

> 
> > +#
> > +# Refer to "4) Naming" section of Documentation/process/coding-style.rst for
> > +# below three terms.
> >  blacklist||(denylist|blocklist)
> > -# For other alternatives of 'slave', Please refer to
> > -# Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> >  slave||(secondary|target|...)
> >  whitelist||(allowlist|passlist)
>