linux-kernel - [RFC PATCH 0/2] practical auto-QA de-noiser or -E_TOO

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20251015175137.2178263-1-jim.cromie@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 11:51:35 -0600
From: Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@...il.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@...il.com>
Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/2] practical auto-QA de-noiser or -E_TOO_UGLY ?

Can I haz (in compiler.h)

  #define __no_side_effects(...)    /* checkpatch hint only */

module_param_named() if submitted now, would draw several warnings
from checkpatch --strict, on name, value (but not type).

  CHECK: Macro argument reuse '_var' - possible side-effects?

This macro allows an author to suppress that complaint, clearly and
declaratively, and strongly suggests that they used --strict, saw the
complaint, and silenced it.  So they know not to pass i++.

Do the possible QA/CI benefits suffice for the mild "hackish" flavor ?

Jim Cromie (2):
  checkpatch: add __no_side_effects() hint/assertion macro
  checkpatch: cosmetic-style tweak

 include/linux/compiler.h | 12 +++++++++
 scripts/checkpatch.pl    | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 2 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

-- 
2.51.0