linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: fix false positive for REPEATED

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, 21 Oct 2020 23:55:28 +0530
From:   Aditya <yashsri421@...il.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lukas.bulwahn@...il.com,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        dwaipayanray1@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: fix false positive for REPEATED_WORD warning

On 21/10/20 11:35 pm, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-10-21 at 23:25 +0530, Aditya wrote:
>> Thanks for your feedback. I ran a manual check using this approach
>> over v5.6..v5.8.
>> The negatives occurring with this approach are for the word 'be'
>> (Frequency 5) and 'add'(Frequency 1). For eg.
>>
>> WARNING:REPEATED_WORD: Possible repeated word: 'be'
>> #278: FILE: drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_flow.c:388:
>> + * @seg: index of packet segment whose raw fields are to be be extracted
>>
>> WARNING:REPEATED_WORD: Possible repeated word: 'add'
>> #21:
>> Let's also add add a note about using only the l3 access without l4
>>
>> Apart from these, it works as expected. It also takes into account the
>> cases for multiple occurrences of hex, as you mentioned. For eg.
>>
>> WARNING:REPEATED_WORD: Possible repeated word: 'ffff'
>> #15:
> []
>> I'll try to combine both methods and come up with a better approach.
> 
> Enjoy, but please consider:
> 
> If for over 30K patches, there are just a few false positives and
> a few false negatives, it likely doesn't need much improvement...
> 
> checkpatch works on patch contexts.
> 
> It's not intended to be perfect.
> 
> It's just a little tool that can help avoid some common defects.
> 
> 

Alright Sir. Then, we can proceed with the method you suggested, as it
is more or less perfect.
I'll re-send the patch with modified reduced warning figure.

Thanks
Aditya