netdev - Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: update phylink/sfp keyword matching

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: <912b806b7943a227e3c79ed747b2242b87a3fd50.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Wed, 05 Aug 2020 15:09:34 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: update phylink/sfp keyword matching

On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 23:02 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 11:54:25AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 19:22 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 11:11:28AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 7:34 AM Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > > Is this something you're willing to merge directly please?
> > > > 
> > > > Done.
> > > > 
> > > > That said:
> > > > 
> > > > > -K:     phylink
> > > > > +K:     phylink\.h|struct\s+phylink|\.phylink|>phylink_|phylink_(autoneg|clear|connect|create|destroy|disconnect|ethtool|helper|mac|mii|of|set|start|stop|test|validate)
> > > > 
> > > > That's a very awkward pattern. I wonder if there could be better ways
> > > > to express this (ie "only apply this pattern to these files" kind of
> > > > thing)
> > > 
> > > Yes, it's extremely awkward - I spent much of the morning with perl
> > > testing it out on the drivers/ subtree.
> > 
> > And perhaps easier to read would be to use multiple K: lines.
> > (?: used to avoid unnecessary capture groups)
> > 
> > K:	phylink\.h|struct\s+phylink
> > K:	(?:\.|\-\>)phylink_
> 
> That one is definitely incorrect.  It is not .phylink_ or ->phylink_,
> it was .phylink (without _) or >phylink_

Hi Russell.

I don't see the difference.

All uses of .phylink are followed with _
as far as I can tell.

$ git grep -Poh "\.phylink\S*"|sort|uniq -c
      1 .phylink_fixed_state
      2 .phylink_mac_an_restart
      9 .phylink_mac_config
      1 .phylink_mac_config.
     11 .phylink_mac_link_down
      6 .phylink_mac_link_state
      9 .phylink_mac_link_up
     38 .phylink_validate