linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 04/13] module: Move livepatch support to a separate file

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YhzIjPYNw2tA4GmS@alley>
Date:   Mon, 28 Feb 2022 14:05:16 +0100
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Cc:     Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>,
        "mcgrof@...nel.org" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        "cl@...ux.com" <cl@...ux.com>, "mbenes@...e.cz" <mbenes@...e.cz>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "jeyu@...nel.org" <jeyu@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-modules@...r.kernel.org" <linux-modules@...r.kernel.org>,
        "void@...ifault.com" <void@...ifault.com>,
        "atomlin@...mlin.com" <atomlin@...mlin.com>,
        "allen.lkml@...il.com" <allen.lkml@...il.com>,
        "joe@...ches.com" <joe@...ches.com>,
        "msuchanek@...e.de" <msuchanek@...e.de>,
        "oleksandr@...alenko.name" <oleksandr@...alenko.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 04/13] module: Move livepatch support to a separate
 file

On Mon 2022-02-28 11:46:33, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 28/02/2022 à 11:56, Petr Mladek a écrit :
> > On Fri 2022-02-25 16:49:31, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> >> Le 25/02/2022 à 10:34, Petr Mladek a écrit :
> >>>
> >>> Please do not do these small coding style changes. It complicates the
> >>> review and increases the risk of regressions. Different people
> >>> have different preferences. Just imagine that every half a year
> >>> someone update style of a code by his personal preferences. The
> >>> real changes will then get lost in a lot of noise.
> >>
> >> I disagree here. We are not talking about people's preference here but
> >> compliance with documented Linux kernel Codying Style and handling of
> >> official checkpatch.pl script reports.
> > 
> > Really?
> > 
> > 1. I restored
> > 
> > 	+	if (mod->klp_info->secstrings == NULL) {
> > 
> >     and checkpatch.pl is happy.
> 
> On mainline's kernel/module.c checkpatch.pl tells me:
> 
> CHECK: Comparison to NULL could be written "!mod->klp_info->secstrings"
> #2092: FILE: kernel/module.c:2092:
> +	if (mod->klp_info->secstrings == NULL) {

Only with --strict option. Alias of this option is --subjective...

> By the way some maintainers require checkpatch' clean patches even when 
> this is only code move. I remember being requested to do that in the 
> past, so now I almost always do it with my own patches.

I see.

>From my POV, checkpatch is an useful tool for finding obvious mistakes.
But it is just a best effort approach. It has false positives. And
some complains are controversial.

BTW: I have never heard about --strict/--subjective option. I wonder
if some maintainer requires it.

> > I would not have complained if it did not complicate my review.
> > But it did!
> 
> Reviewing partial code move is not easy anyway, git is not very 
> userfriendly with that.

Exactly. It is a real pain to find changes in moved functions. It is
much easier when the author just shuffled the code. Anyway, the less
changes the better.

Best Regards,
Petr