linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] checkpatch: allow multi-statement declarative macros.

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]

Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 17:37:39 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: jim.cromie@...il.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...uxfoundation.org, Andy Whitcroft
 <apw@...onical.com>, Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>, Lukas Bulwahn
 <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] checkpatch: allow multi-statement declarative
 macros.

On Thu, 2024-05-16 at 09:20 -0600, jim.cromie@...il.com wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 8:43 AM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 2024-05-16 at 08:14 -0600, Jim Cromie wrote:
> > > Declarative macros, which declare/define storage (at either file or
> > > function scope), cannot be wrapped in do-while statements.  So
> > > checkpatch advice is incorrect here.
> > > 
> > > The code has an $exceptions regex which allows multiple statements
> > > based on the macro name, etc; /DECLARE_PER_CPU|DEFINE_PER_CPU/ are
> > > currently accepted, widen those to accept /DECLARE|DEFINE/.
> > 
> > It seems this exempts too large a number of these macros
> > 
> > $ git grep -P '^\s*\#\s*define\s+\w*(?:DECLARE|DEFINE)\w*'|wc -l
> > 5075
> > 
> 
> wow, thats more than Id have thought.
> 
> > How about somehow limiting these exemptions more strictly?
> 
> agreed.  I'll just add my 1 exceptional macro name.
> resending shortly.

Is this macro used in a lot of places?
Otherwise, why not just ignore the macro where it occurs?