Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:20:41 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: "Roberts, William C" <william.c.roberts@...el.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"apw@...onical.com"
	 <apw@...onical.com>, "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com"
	 <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

(Adding back the cc's)

On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 21:28 +0000, Roberts, William C wrote:
> <snip>
> > No worries.
> > No idea why it doesn't work for you.
> > Maybe the hand applying was somehow
> > faulty?
> > 
> > The attached is on top of -next so it does have offsets on Linus' tree, but it seems
> > to work.
> > 
> > (on -linux)
> > 
> > $ patch -p1 < cp_vsp.diff
> > patching file scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > Hunk #1 succeeded at 5634 (offset -36 lines).
> > 
> > $ cat t_block.c
> > {
> > 	MY_DEBUG(drv->foo,
> > 		 "%pk",
> > 		 foo->boo);
> > }
> > $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f t_block.c
> > WARNING: Invalid vsprintf pointer extension '%pk'
> > #2: FILE: t_block.c:2:
> > +	MY_DEBUG(drv->foo,
> > +		 "%pk",
> > +		 foo->boo);
> > 
> > total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 5 lines checked
> > 
> > NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to
> >       mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-inplace.
> > 
> > t_block.c has style problems, please review.
> > 
> > NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report
> >       them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
> 
> 
> Applied. It works fine with your example (see attached 0001-tblock.patch) but it doesn't provide
> Output for me with 0002-drv-hack.patch (attached as well)
> 
> $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl 0002-drv-hack.patch 
> total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10 lines checked
> 
> 0002-drv-hack.patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission.
> 
> ./scripts/checkpatch.pl 0001-tblock.patch 
> WARNING: added, moved or deleted file(s), does MAINTAINERS need updating?
> #13: 
> new file mode 100644
> 
> WARNING: Invalid vsprintf pointer extension '%pk'
> #19: FILE: t_block.c:2:
> +	MY_DEBUG(drv->foo,
> +		"%pk",
> +		 foo->boo);
> 
> total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 6 lines checked
> 
> NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to
>       mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-inplace.
> 
> 0001-tblock.patch has style problems, please review.
> 
> NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report
>       them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.

This means _all_ the $stat checks aren't being done
on patches that add just a single multi-line statement.

Andrew?  Any thoughts on how to enable $stat appropriately
for patch contexts with a single multi-line statement?

View attachment "1.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (695 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.