From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB63DC433E1 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 01:47:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75C3420657 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 01:47:18 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 75C3420657 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=perches.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 280DB280001; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 21:47:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 22FC48000C; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 21:47:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 0D13A280001; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 21:47:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0058.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.58]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA3F38000C for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 21:47:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin13.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B343C180AD802 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 01:47:17 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76889841714.13.sail19_2287be5669f1f Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin13.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DD3A18140B60 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 01:47:17 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: sail19_2287be5669f1f X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5271 Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0048.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.48]) by imf43.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 01:47:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6C99837F24C; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 01:47:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-HE-Tag: actor89_4e0069c26d93 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3931 Received: from XPS-9350.home (unknown [47.151.136.130]) (Authenticated sender: joe@perches.com) by omf11.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 01:47:14 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <6f921002478544217903ee4bfbe3c400e169687f.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] checkpatch: Remove awareness of uninitialized_var() macro From: Joe Perches To: Kees Cook Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Miguel Ojeda , Alexander Potapenko , Andy Whitcroft , x86@kernel.org, drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, b43-dev@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 18:47:13 -0700 In-Reply-To: <202006031838.55722640DC@keescook> References: <20200603233203.1695403-1-keescook@chromium.org> <20200603233203.1695403-9-keescook@chromium.org> <202006031838.55722640DC@keescook> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.2-0ubuntu1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 8DD3A18140B60 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 2020-06-03 at 18:40 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 05:02:29PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-06-03 at 16:32 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > > Using uninitialized_var() is dangerous as it papers over real bugs[1] > > > (or can in the future), and suppresses unrelated compiler warnings > > > (e.g. "unused variable"). If the compiler thinks it is uninitialized, > > > either simply initialize the variable or make compiler changes. > > > > > > In preparation for removing[2] the[3] macro[4], effectively revert > > > commit 16b7f3c89907 ("checkpatch: avoid warning about uninitialized_var()") > > > and remove all remaining mentions of uninitialized_var(). > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200603174714.192027-1-glider@google.com/ > > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFw+Vbj0i=1TGqCR5vQkCzWJ0QxK6CernOU6eedsudAixw@mail.gmail.com/ > > > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFwgbgqhbp1fkxvRKEpzyR5J8n1vKT1VZdz9knmPuXhOeg@mail.gmail.com/ > > > [4] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFz2500WfbKXAx8s67wrm9=yVJu65TpLgN_ybYNv0VEOKA@mail.gmail.com/ > > > > nack. see below. > > > > I'd prefer a simple revert, but it shouldn't > > be done here. > > What do you mean? (I can't understand this and "fine by me" below?) I did write "other than that"... I mean that the original commit fixed 2 issues, one with the uninitialized_var addition, and another with the missing void function declaration. I think I found the missing void function bit because the uninitialized_var use looked like a function so I fixed both things at the same time. If you change it, please just remove the bit that checks for uninitialized_var. Thanks, Joe > > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl > > [] > > > @@ -4075,7 +4074,7 @@ sub process { > > > } > > > > > > # check for function declarations without arguments like "int foo()" > > > - if ($line =~ /(\b$Type\s*$Ident)\s*\(\s*\)/) { > > > + if ($line =~ /(\b$Type\s+$Ident)\s*\(\s*\)/) { > > > > This isn't right because $Type includes a possible trailing * > > where there isn't a space between $Type and $Ident > > Ah, hm, that was changed in the mentioned commit: > > - if ($line =~ /(\b$Type\s+$Ident)\s*\(\s*\)/) { > + if ($line =~ /(\b$Type\s*$Ident)\s*\(\s*\)/) { > > > e.g.: int *bar(void); > > > > Other than that, fine by me... > > Thanks for looking it over! I'll adjust it however you'd like. :) >