[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2023071117-partition-escargot-9667@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 16:23:25 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>,
Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
Tom Gall <tom.gall@...aro.org>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] checkpatch: check for missing Fixes tags
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 04:48:14PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> This check looks for common words that probably indicate a patch
> is a fix. For now the regex is:
>
> (?:(?:BUG: K.|UB)SAN: |Call Trace:|stable\@|syzkaller)/)
>
> Why are stable patches encouraged to have a fixes tag? Some people mark
> their stable patches as "# 5.10" etc. This is useful but a Fixes tag is
> still a good idea. For example, the Fixes tag helps in review. It
> helps people to not cherry-pick buggy patches without also
> cherry-picking the fix.
>
> Also if a bug affects the 5.7 kernel some people will round it up to
> 5.10+ because 5.7 is not supported on kernel.org. It's possible the Bad
> Binder bug was caused by this sort of gap where companies outside of
> kernel.org are supporting different kernels from kernel.org.
>
> Should it be counted as a Fix when a patch just silences harmless
> WARN_ON() stack trace. Yes. Definitely.
>
> Is silencing compiler warnings a fix? It seems unfair to the original
> authors, but we use -Werror now, and warnings break the build so let's
> just add Fixes tags. I tell people that silencing static checker
> warnings is not a fix but the rules on this vary by subsystem.
>
> Is fixing a minor LTP issue (Linux Test Project) a fix? Probably? It's
> hard to know what to do if the LTP test has technically always been
> broken.
>
> One clear false positive from this check is when someone updated their
> debug output and included before and after Call Traces. Or when crashes
> are introduced deliberately for testing. In those cases, you should
> just ignore checkpatch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists