linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scripts: add macro_checker script to check unused parameters in 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20240723150931.42f206f9cd86bc391b48c790@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 15:09:31 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Julian Sun <sunjunchao2870@...il.com>
Cc: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, jack@...e.cz, brauner@...nel.org,
 viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, masahiroy@...nel.org, n.schier@....de,
 ojeda@...nel.org, djwong@...nel.org, kvalo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts: add macro_checker script to check unused
 parameters in macros

On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 05:11:54 -0400 Julian Sun <sunjunchao2870@...il.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Recently, I saw a patch[1] on the ext4 mailing list regarding
> the correction of a macro definition error. Jan mentioned
> that "The bug in the macro is a really nasty trap...".
> Because existing compilers are unable to detect
> unused parameters in macro definitions. This inspired me
> to write a script to check for unused parameters in
> macro definitions and to run it.

Seems a useful contribution thanks.  And a nice changelog!

>  scripts/macro_checker.py | 101 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Makes me wonder who will run this, and why.  Perhaps a few people will
run ls and wonder "hey, what's that".  But many people who might have
been interested in running this simply won't know about it.

"make help | grep check" shows we have a few ad-hoc integrations but I
wonder if we would benefit from a top-level `make static-checks'
target?