linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: improve MAINTAINERS file update test

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: <41c8d9a1-cc4d-7ff0-c269-3f631b7d4a78@nvidia.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Jul 2020 17:02:05 -0500
From:   Daniel Dadap <ddadap@...dia.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, <apw@...onical.com>
CC:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: improve MAINTAINERS file update test


On 7/27/20 4:07 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> On Mon, 2020-07-27 at 15:58 -0500, Daniel Dadap wrote:
>> Add an additional regular expression to detect updates to the
>> MAINTAINERS file as reported in the unified diffs generated by
>> `git format-patch`. This suppresses the "does MAINTAINERS need
>> updating" message when MAINTAINERS is updated with this format.
> Please cc at least LKML.


Oops; thanks for adding the list. I'll be sure to include it for any 
revised patches.


>> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> []
>> @@ -2621,7 +2621,8 @@ sub process {
>>
>>   # Check if MAINTAINERS is being updated.  If so, there's probably no need to
>>   # emit the "does MAINTAINERS need updating?" message on file add/move/delete
>> -             if ($line =~ /^\s*MAINTAINERS\s*\|/) {
>> +             if ($line =~ /^\s*MAINTAINERS\s*\|/ ||
>> +                 $line =~ /^[-+]{3} [ab]\/MAINTAINERS$/) {
> I don't believe this works well as any test
> for a file modification to MAINTAINERS occurs
> after the block that would show a diffstat
> where the warning is emitted.


Hmm. It must have worked for me because the MAINTAINERS file appeared 
earlier in the patch than a newly added file in a patch I was checking 
that triggers this warning before this change, but doesn't after this 
change. This needn't be the case, though. Would it make sense to move 
the check for a diffstat-style /^\sMAINTAINERS\s*\|/ as well as a 
unidiff-style /^[-+]{3} [ab]\/MAINTAINERS$/ to the pre-scan sanitize phase?