netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] checkpatch: add double empty line check

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]

Date:	Tue, 20 Nov 2012 16:36:55 +0000
From:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
To:	Eilon Greenstein <eilong@...adcom.com>
Cc:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] checkpatch: add double empty line check

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 06:22:24PM +0200, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 16:14 +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 06:06:10PM +0200, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
> > > I'm only testing the nextline if the current line is newly added. If I
> > > got it right, when a line is newly added, the next line can be:
> > > a. another new line
> > > b. existing line (provided for context)
> > > c. Does not exist since this is the end of the file (I missed this one
> > > originally)
> > > 
> > > It cannot just jump to the next hunk and it cannot be a deleted line,
> > > right?
> > 
> > Mostly that would be true.  If the hunk is the last hunk and adds lines
> > at the bottom of a file _and_ the context around it has blank lines then
> > something.  I think that would trip up this algorithm, reporting beyond
> > the end of the hunk perhaps.
> 
> I do not want to cause any perl warning, but adding a new segment that
> ends with a new empty line above an existing empty line is something
> that I want to catch - so checking the next line (even if it is not new)
> is desired. Do you have other suggestions on how to implement something
> like that?
> 
> I'm not saying that my patch is safe - I already missed a corner case
> when adding a line at the end of the file, but I'm willing to run more
> tests and see if I hit some perl warning. So how about running it on the
> last X changes in the kernel git tree? How many tests are enough to get
> reasonable confidant level?

I have been testing the patches there with some fake files to try and
catch these indeed.  I did incldue my take on how to solve this in
previous replies.

-apw
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html