linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] scripts/kernel-doc: fix logic to handle unissued warnings

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: <aWTeaEHm8n_pDQhr@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 13:43:36 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
Cc: Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] scripts/kernel-doc: fix logic to handle unissued
 warnings

On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 12:23:23PM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Changeset 469c1c9eb6c9 ("kernel-doc: Issue warnings that were silently discarded")
> didn't properly addressed the missing messages behavior, as
> it was calling directly python logger low-level function,
> instead of using the expected method to emit warnings.
> 
> Basically, there are two methods to log messages:
> 
> - self.config.log.warning() - This is the raw level to emit a
>   warning. It just writes the a message at stderr, via python
>   logging, as it is initialized as:
> 
>     self.config.log = logging.getLogger("kernel-doc")
> 
> - self.config.warning() - This is where we actually consider a
>   message as a warning, properly incrementing error count.
> 
> Due to that, several parsing error messages are internally considered
> as success, causing -Werror to not work on such messages.
> 
> While here, ensure that the last ignored entry will also be handled
> by adding an extra check at the end of the parse handler.

Thanks for addressing these issues, Mauro!

I am not promising I will test this soon, but from code perspective it looks
good to me,
Acked-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko