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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 22:41:05 -0700 From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> To: Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com> Cc: linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lukas.bulwahn@...il.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] checkpatch: add new exception to repeated word check On Sat, 2020-10-17 at 10:52 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote: > Recently, commit 4f6ad8aa1eac ("checkpatch: move repeated word test") > moved the repeated word test to check for more file types. But after > this, if checkpatch.pl is run on MAINTAINERS, it generates several > new warnings of the type: > > WARNING: Possible repeated word: 'git' > > For example: > WARNING: Possible repeated word: 'git' > +T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rw/uml.git > > So, the pattern "git git://..." is a false positive in this case. > > There are several other combinations which may produce a wrong > warning message, such as "@size size", ":Begin begin", etc. > > Extend repeated word check to compare the characters before and > after the word matches. If the preceding or succeeding character > belongs to the exception list, the warning is avoided. > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel-mentees/81b6a0bb2c7b9256361573f7a13201ebcd4876f1.camel@perches.com/ > Suggested-by: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> > Suggested-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com> > Signed-off-by: Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com> > --- > scripts/checkpatch.pl | 17 +++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl > index f1a4e61917eb..89430dfd6652 100755 > --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl > +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl > @@ -595,6 +595,7 @@ our @mode_permission_funcs = ( > ); > > my $word_pattern = '\b[A-Z]?[a-z]{2,}\b'; > +my $exclude_chars = '[^\.\,\+\s]'; Why include a + character here? > #Create a search pattern for all these functions to speed up a loop below > our $mode_perms_search = ""; > @@ -3056,15 +3057,27 @@ sub process { > > my $first = $1; > my $second = $2; > - > + my $start_pos = $-[1]; > + my $end_pos = $+[2]; > if ($first =~ /(?:struct|union|enum)/) { > pos($rawline) += length($first) + length($second) + 1; > next; > } > > - next if ($first ne $second); > + next if (lc($first) ne lc($second)); > next if ($first eq 'long'); > > + # check for character before and after the word matches > + my $start_char = ''; > + my $end_char = ''; > + $start_char = substr($rawline, $start_pos - 1, 1) if ($start_pos > 0); > + $end_char = substr($rawline, $end_pos, 1) if ($end_pos <= length($rawline)); substr uses index 0, so I believe the if should be < > + > + if ($start_char =~ /^$exclude_chars$/ || > + $end_char =~ /^$exclude_chars$/) { > + next; > + } Please use "next if (test);" to be similar to the other uses above. And this doesn't work on end of phrase or sentence. ie: "my sentence is is, a duplicate word word." so $end_char could be a comma or a period. so likely the $end_char test should be !~ What is the reason to add and use $exclude_chars?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists