linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] checkpatch: improve email parsing

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: <CABJPP5Dyc4iK-3f-N1eKF9sPZhpr6A92PA1rFo1rx+9qvO10zQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 7 Nov 2020 10:11:07 +0530
From:   Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
        Aditya Srivastava <yashsri421@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] checkpatch: improve email parsing

On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 3:34 AM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2020-11-07 at 03:15 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> > checkpatch doesn't report warnings for many common mistakes
> > in emails. Some of which are trailing commas and incorrect
> > use of email comments.
>
> Assuming it all works, this looks good.  I haven't tested it.
>
> How did you test the $fix bits?
>
Hi,
I actually dumped about 17k unique emails from git log, put it in one of
my previous patches, and ran checkpatch with --fix on it.
I checked the diff and most of the cases looked pretty good to me.
I could send the diff output if you like?

> Trivial notes:
>
> > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> []
> > +                             # stable@...r.kernel.org or stable@...nel.org shouldn't
> > +                             # have an email name. In addition commments should strictly
> > +                             # begin with a #
> > +                             if ($email =~ /^.*stable\@(?:vger\.)?kernel\.org/) {
>
> Likely better to test with a case insensitive match so
> STABLE@...r.kernel.org and such are still warned.

Sure, I will do that.
>
>                                 if ($email =~ /\bstable\@(?:vger\.)?kernel\.org\b/i) {
>
> > +                                     if ($sign_off =~ /cc:$/i && (($comment ne "" && $comment !~ /^#.+/) ||
> > +                                         ($email_name ne ""))) {
>
> || $sign_off !~ /^cc:/i ?

I actually had a doubt about that one. Only the stable address with
Cc: should be checked right? Or something else?

What about those stable addresses with tags other than Cc: ? Should
a change be suggested?

Thanks,
Dwaipayan.