linux-kernel - Re: Outreachy

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, 15 Mar 2023 13:09:29 -0700
From:   Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>,
        Menna Mahmoud <eng.mennamahmoud.mm@...il.com>
Cc:     Michael.Hennerich@...log.com, jic23@...nel.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Outreachy Linux Kernel <outreachy@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: Outreachy

On 3/15/23 12:24, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> On 3/15/23 07:03, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 03:17:28PM +0200, Menna Mahmoud wrote:
>>> Hi Mentors,
>>>
>>>
>>> I am Menna, Outreachy applicant and I work on my clean-up patches.
>>>
>>> Is it Okay to work on this error reported by checkpatch script?
>>>
>>>
>>> drivers/staging/iio/frequency/ad9832.c
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> ERROR: Use 4 digit octal (0777) not decimal permissions
>>> #256: FILE: drivers/staging/iio/frequency/ad9832.c:256:
>>> +static IIO_DEV_ATTR_FREQ(0, 1, 0200, NULL, ad9832_write, AD9832_FREQ1HM);
>> What???  Is it complaining about the 0200?  That is octal.  Why is
>> checkpatch complaining about this?  Am I wrong?  Maybe I am misreading.
>>
>> I could investigate, but I am leaving that task to you.  It may be that
>> checkpatch has a problem and you can fix that instead.
>>
> Yes, checkpatch seems to be confused here.
It seems to make an assumption that everything starting with 
IIO_DEV_ATTR_ has the mode field at the same position. Which is not the 
case.

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/scripts/checkpatch.pl#L798

Still a good target to get this fixed as part of a outreachy task.