linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2] 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 14 Oct 2020 08:21:13 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
cc:     Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
        Ujjwal Kumar <ujjwalkumar0501@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] checkpatch: add shebang check to
 EXECUTE_PERMISSIONS

On Tue, 13 Oct 2020, Joe Perches wrote:

> On Wed, 2020-10-14 at 07:46 +0200, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> > Just one bigger project example: Comparing clang-format suggestions on 
> > patches against checkpatch.pl suggestions are fine-tuning both of them to fit to 
> > the actual kernel style.
> 
> Eek no.
> 
> Mindless use of either tool isn't a great thing.
>

I did not suggest applying the tool to the source code and just changing 
the code... that is not a good idea as it is not helping anyone and just 
causing churn and distraction.

> Linux source code has generally be created with
> human readability in mind by humans, not scripts.
> 
> Please don't try to replace human readable code
> with mindless tools.
>

The goal is to run both tools on the code base and with the comparison see
how both tools can be improved.

We basically assume that the code is in the style it is intended to be.
What does checkpatch.pl warn about and what does clang-format still warn 
about, which is generally accepted okay as style in the kernel?

Then, we can improve the checkpatch and clang-format rules.

> If there's something inappropriate in checkpatch,
> please mention it.
> 
> There is a _lot_ of relatively inappropriate
> output in how clang-format changes existing code
> in the kernel.
>

Agree.

> Try it and look at the results.
>

Agree, that was the proposal. Nothing else.

> Improving how .clang-format is created and its
> mechanisms (for example: continually out of date
> ForEachMacros lists) could be reasonably be done.
> 
>

And that is something I would hope that somebody looking at the results 
would spot and start improving.

Lukas