linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kconfig: nconf: stop endless search-up loops

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:   Sat, 27 Mar 2021 15:26:38 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Mihai Moldovan <ionic@...ic.de>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kconfig: nconf: stop endless search-up loops

On 3/27/21 3:12 PM, Mihai Moldovan wrote:
> * On 3/27/21 4:58 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 3/27/21 5:01 AM, Mihai Moldovan wrote:
>>> +		if ((-1 == index) && (index == match_start))
>>
>> checkpatch doesn't complain about this (and I wonder how it's missed), but
>> kernel style is (mostly) "constant goes on right hand side of comparison",
>> so
>> 		if ((index == -1) &&
> 
> I can naturally send a V2 with that swapped.
> 
> To my rationale: I made sure to use checkpatch, saw that it was accepted and
> even went for a quick git grep -- '-1 ==', which likewise returned enough
> results for me to call this consistent with the current code style.
> 
> Maybe those matches were just frowned-upon, but forgotten-to-be-critized
> examples of this pattern being used.

There is a test for it in checkpatch.pl but I also used checkpatch.pl
without it complaining, so I don't know what it takes to make the script
complain.

			if ($lead !~ /(?:$Operators|\.)\s*$/ &&
			    $to !~ /^(?:Constant|[A-Z_][A-Z0-9_]*)$/ &&
			    WARN("CONSTANT_COMPARISON",
				 "Comparisons should place the constant on the right side of the test\n" . $herecurr) &&

cheers.
-- 
~Randy