netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH v5 01/10] netdev-genl: spec: Extend netdev netlink spec in YAML for queue

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 12:09:33 -0700
From: "Nambiar, Amritha" <amritha.nambiar@...el.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Philip Li <philip.li@...el.com>
CC: <oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev>, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v5 01/10] netdev-genl: spec: Extend netdev
 netlink spec in YAML for queue

On 10/23/2023 7:52 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 09:53:03 +0800 Philip Li wrote:
>>> Some of them are bogus. TBH I'm not sure how much value running
>>> checkpatch in the bot adds. It's really trivial to run for the
>>
>> It is found there're quite some checkpatch related fix commits on
>> mainline.
> 
> Those changes are mostly for old code, aren't they?
> It'd be useful to do some analysis of how long ago the mis-formatted
> code has been introduced. Because if new code doesn't get fixes
> there's no point testing new patches..
> 
>> Thus the bot wants to extend the coverage and do shift
>> left testing on developer repos and mailing list patches.
> 
> I understand and appreciate the effort.
> 
> I think that false positive has about a 100x the negative effect of a
> true positive. If more than 1% of checkpatch warnings are ignored, we
> should *not* report them to the list. Currently in networking we fully
> trust the build bot and as soon as a patch set gets a reply from you it
> gets auto-dropped from our review queue.

Hi Jakub,

Just checking if this series is dropped from the review queue because of 
the build bot warnings...
should I submit a v6 with the single line fix for the warning (legit) on 
patch-3, or
should I wait for more feedback (if there is a chance this v5 series 
would still be reviewed) and address them all together submitting v6.

> It'd be quite bad if we have to double check the reports.
> 
> Speaking of false positive rate - we disabled some checks in our own
> use of checkpatch:
> https://github.com/kuba-moo/nipa/blob/master/tests/patch/checkpatch/checkpatch.sh#L6-L12
> and we still get about 26% false positive rate! (Count by looking at
> checks that failed and were ignored, because patch was merged anyway).
> A lot of those may be line length related (we still prefer 80 char
> limit) but even without that - checkpatch false positives a lot.
> 
> And the maintainer is not very receptive to improvements for false
> positives:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231013172739.1113964-1-kuba@kernel.org/
> 
>> But as you mentioned above, we will take furture care to the output
>> of checkpatch to be conservative for the reporting.
> 
> FWIW the most issues that "get through" in networking are issues
> in documentation (warnings for make htmldocs) :(