linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scripts: reduce false positives in the macro

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: <20240725085156.dezpnf44cilt46su@quack3>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 10:51:56 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Julian Sun <sunjunchao2870@...il.com>
Cc: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
	jack@...e.cz, brauner@...nel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	masahiroy@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, n.schier@....de,
	ojeda@...nel.org, djwong@...nel.org, kvalo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts: reduce false positives in the macro_checker
 script.

On Thu 25-07-24 03:58:30, Julian Sun wrote:
> Reduce false positives in the macro_checker
> in the following scenarios:
>   1. Conditional compilation
>   2. Macro definitions with only a single character
>   3. Macro definitions as (0) and (1)
> 
> Before this patch:
> 	sjc@sjc:linux$ ./scripts/macro_checker.py  fs | wc -l
> 	99
> 
> After this patch:
> 	sjc@sjc:linux$ ./scripts/macro_checker.py  fs | wc -l
> 	11
> 
> Most of the current warnings are valid now.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Julian Sun <sunjunchao2870@...il.com>
...
>  def file_check_macro(file_path, report):
> +    # number of conditional compiling
> +    cond_compile = 0
>      # only check .c and .h file
>      if not file_path.endswith(".c") and not file_path.endswith(".h"):
>          return
> @@ -57,7 +72,14 @@ def file_check_macro(file_path, report):
>          while True:
>              line = f.readline()
>              if not line:
> -                return
> +                break
> +            line = line.strip()
> +            if line.startswith(cond_compile_mark):
> +                cond_compile += 1
> +                continue
> +            if line.startswith(cond_compile_end):
> +                cond_compile -= 1
> +                continue
>  
>              macro = re.match(macro_pattern, line)
>              if macro:
> @@ -67,6 +89,11 @@ def file_check_macro(file_path, report):
>                      macro = macro.strip()
>                      macro += f.readline()
>                      macro = macro_strip(macro)
> +                if file_path.endswith(".c")  and cond_compile != 0:
> +                    continue
> +                # 1 is for #ifdef xxx at the beginning of the header file
> +                if file_path.endswith(".h") and cond_compile != 1:
> +                    continue
>                  check_macro(macro, report)
>  
>  def get_correct_macros(path):

So I don't think this is right. As far as I understand this skips any macros
that are conditionally defined? Why? There is a lot of them and checking
them is beneficial... The patterns you have added should be dealing with
most of the conditional defines anyway.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR