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]

Message-ID: <cfa48542-4654-fe62-e7fa-c7d99c6ab4f5@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Oct 2020 19:51:18 +0530
From:   Aditya <yashsri421@...il.com>
To:     Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...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 22/10/20 12:42 am, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> 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
> 

Hi Sir
I have implemented my solution. Should I send the patch in reply to
this mail or as a different mail? Also should I label it as v2? I have
also addressed the warnings out of list command output in it. for eg.

WARNING:REPEATED_WORD: Possible repeated word: 'root'
#18:
  drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root    0 Apr 17 10:53 .

WARNING:REPEATED_WORD: Possible repeated word: 'nobody'
#28:
drwxr-xr-x 5 nobody nobody    0 Jan 25 18:08 .

Sincerely
Aditya