linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] checkpatch: add shebang check to EXECUTE

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: <a9ced92c25f45931fd4a387e2cf1a39a36a11c27.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:23:35 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
        Ujjwal Kumar <ujjwalkumar0501@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] checkpatch: add shebang check to EXECUTE_PERMISSIONS

On Mon, 2020-10-12 at 16:16 +0200, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, Ujjwal Kumar wrote:
> > On 12/10/20 11:47 am, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2020-10-12 at 11:19 +0530, Ujjwal Kumar wrote:
> > > > checkpatch.pl checks for invalid EXECUTE_PERMISSIONS on source
> > > > files. The script leverages filename extensions and its path in
> > > > the repository to decide whether to allow execute permissions on
> > > > the file or not.
> > > > 
> > > > Based on current check conditions, a perl script file having
> > > > execute permissions, without '.pl' extension in its filename
> > > > and not belonging to 'scripts/' directory is reported as ERROR
> > > > which is a false-positive.
> > > > 
> > > > Adding a shebang check along with current conditions will make
> > > > the check more generalised and improve checkpatch reports.
> > > > To do so, without breaking the core design decision of checkpatch,
> > > > we can fetch the first line from the patch itself and match it for
> > > > a shebang pattern.
> > > > 
> > > > There can be cases where the first line is not part of the patch.
> > > 
> > > For instance: a patch that only changes permissions
> > > without changing any of the file content.
[]
> > Should these new changes go as a separate patch or can they be
> > included in the next iteration of this patch?
[]
The commit log should be updated with the example shown.
Please send a clean V2.