linux-kernel - Re: Fw: [PATCH 0/2] feat: checkpatch: prohibit Buglink: and warn about missing Link:

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: <9958a748-2608-8ed2-6e8f-2f3291286271@leemhuis.info>
Date:   Tue, 6 Dec 2022 09:50:20 +0100
From:   Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kai Wasserbäch <kai@....carbon-project.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: [PATCH 0/2] feat: checkpatch: prohibit Buglink: and warn
 about missing Link:

On 06.12.22 08:44, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-12-06 at 08:17 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 06.12.22 07:27, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> On 06.12.22 06:54, Joe Perches wrote:
> []
>>>> and perhaps a more
>>>> generic, "is the thing in front of a URI/URL" a known/supported entry,
>>>> instead of using an known invalid test would be a better mechanism.
>>>
>>> Are you sure about that? It's not that I disagree completely, but it
>>> sounds overly restrictive to me and makes it harder for new tags to
>>> evolve in case we might want them.
> 
> It's easy to add newly supported values to a list.
> 
>>> And what tags would be on this allow-list? Anything else then "Link" and
>>> "Patchwork"? Those are the ones that looked common and valid to me when
>>> I ran
>>>
>>> git log --grep='http' v4.0.. | grep http | grep -v '    Link: ' | less
>>>
>>> and skimmed the output. Maybe "Datasheet" should be allowed, too -- not
>>> sure.
> []
>>> But I found a few others that likely should be on the disallow list:
>>> "Closes:", "Bug:", "Gitlab issue:", "References:", "Ref:", "Bugzilla:",
>>> "RHBZ:", and "link", as "Link" should be used instead in all of these
>>> cases afaics.
> 
> Do understand please that checkpatch will never be perfect.
> At best, it's just a guidance tool.

Of course -- and that's actually a reason why I prefer a disallow list
over an allow list, as that gives guidance in the way of "don't use this
tag, use Link instead" instead of enforcing "always use Link: when
linking somewhere" (now that I've written it like that it feels even
more odd, because it's obvious that it's a link, so why bother with a
tag; but whatever).

I also think the approach with a disallow list will not bother
developers much, while the other forces them a bit to much into a scheme.

> To me most of these are in the noise level, but perhaps all should just
> use Link:
> 
> $ git log -100000 --format=email -P --grep='^\w+:[ \t]*http' | \
>   grep -Poh '^\w+:[ \t]*http' | \
>   sort | uniq -c | sort -rn
>  103889 Link: http
>     415 BugLink: http
>     372 Patchwork: http
>     270 Closes: http
>     221 Bug: http
>     121 References: http
> [...]

Ha, I considered doing something like that when I wrote my earlier mail,
but was to lazy. :-D thx!

Yeah, they are not that often, but I grew tired arguing about that,
that's why I think checkpatch is the better place and in the better
position to handle that.

Anyway, so how to move forward now? Do you insist on a allow list (IOW:
a Link: or Patchwork: before every http...)? Or is a disallow list with
the most common unwanted tags for links (that you thankfully compiled)
fine for you as well?

Ciao, Thorsten