linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Detect suspicious indentation after conditional

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, 14 Apr 2021 14:18:01 -0700
From:   Julius Werner <jwerner@...omium.org>
To:     Julius Werner <jwerner@...omium.org>
Cc:     Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Ivo Sieben <meltedpianoman@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Detect suspicious indentation after conditional

*friendly ping*

Hi Andy, Joe,

Any comments on this patch series? Are you guys the right point of
contact for checkpatch changes?

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 8:50 PM Julius Werner <jwerner@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> This patch series is adding functionality to checkpatch.pl to test for
> incorrect code indentation after a conditional statement, like this:
>
>  if (a)
>    b;
>    c;
>
> (Indentation implies that `c;` was guarded by the conditional, but it
> isn't.) The main part is re-sending a patch from Ivo Sieben that was
> already proposed in 2014 [1]. I don't know why it was never merged --
> it seems that there was no discussion on it. I hope that it was only
> overlooked, because it works great, and I think this is a very important
> class of common error to catch.
>
> I have tested it extensively on the kernel tree and in the course of
> that found a few more edge cases that get fixed by the other two
> patches. With all these applied, the vast majority of hits I get from
> this check on the kernel tree are actual indentation errors or other
> code style violations (e.g. case label and statement on the same line).
> The only significant remaining group of false positives I found are
> cases of macros being defined within a function, which are overall very
> rare. I think the benefit of adding this check would far outweigh the
> remaining amount of noise.
>
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/465116
>
> Ivo Sieben (1):
>   Suspicious indentation detection after conditional statement
>
> Julius Werner (2):
>   checkpatch: ctx_statement_block: Fix preprocessor guard tracking
>   checkpatch: Ignore labels when checking indentation
>
>  scripts/checkpatch.pl | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.29.2
>