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 21:12:32 +0200
From:   Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
To:     Aditya <yashsri421@...il.com>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: fix false positive for REPEATED_WORD warning

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 8:25 PM Aditya <yashsri421@...il.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Aditya, you can also choose to implement your solution;
yes, it is more work for you but it also seems to function better in
the long run.

Clearly, Joe would settle for a simpler solution, but his TODO list of
topics to engage in and work on is also much longer...

Lukas