lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] Fixed Trivial Warnings in file: Deleted Spaces prior to tabs, and added lines. modified: kernel/auditfilter.c
On 15/10/21, Scott Matheina wrote:
> On 10/21/2015 09:15 PM, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > On 15/10/21, Scott Matheina wrote:
> >> On 10/21/2015 10:33 AM, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> >>> On 15/10/21, Joe Perches wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 12:10 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> >>>>> On 15/10/18, Scott Matheina wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/14/2015 04:54 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, October 10, 2015 08:57:55 PM Scott Matheina wrote:
> >>>> []
> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/auditfilter.c b/kernel/auditfilter.c
> >>>> []
> >>>>>>>> @@ -109,6 +109,7 @@ void audit_free_rule_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
> >>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>> struct audit_entry *e = container_of(head, struct audit_entry, rcu);
> >>>>>>>> audit_free_rule(e);
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>> Why?
> >>>>>> I was following the error messages in checkpatch.pl, but the warning
> >>>>>> went away after adding this line. No problem with the code.
> >>>>> That sounds like a bug in checkpatch.pl, since that blank line should be
> >>>>> tween the declaration and the function call.
> >>>> checkpatch message asks for a blank line after the
> >>>> "struct audit_entry *e = ..." declaration.
> >>> Well then maybe it is a bug in his interpretation of the output of
> >>> checkpatch.pl? Scott, did you re-run checkpatch.pl after adding those
> >>> spaces? Did it pass?
> >> The error did go away.
> > Joe, I confirm the error went away. Looks like a bug in checkpatch.pl
> > to me. I tried a number of combinations of things and it didn't
> > complain about several things it should have. I did try a few other
> > things to make sure it was still finding problems like brace placement
> > and leading spaces, but it looks like the blank line checking code isn't
> > working. This is on 4.0, so maybe it has been fixed since then. Scott,
> > what kernel version are you using?
> I'm running Ubuntu 14.04 LTS (Kernel 3.19.0-30-generic) on my machine.
>
> I cloned Linus' repo for source code. I'm pretty sure you were talking
> about the active Kernel on my machine, so if not please let me know.

I was talking about the source used to generate this patch in question,
run ./scripts/checkpatch.pl and do a compile test. The active kernel on
your machine is irrelevant unless you subsequently booted it to test it.
How recent is your clone/pull of Linus' repo?

> >>>>>>>> while (*list != ~0U) {
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> unsigned n = *list++;
> >>>>>>>> if (n >= AUDIT_BITMASK_SIZE * 32 - AUDIT_SYSCALL_CLASSES) {
> >>>>>>>> kfree(p);
> >>>>>>> Why?
> >>>>>> This is the same as above. Just going through the checkpatch.pl
> >>>>>> script, and looking for warnings to fix.
> >>>>> Again, another manifestation of that bug? That blank line should be
> >>>>> after the declaration and before the if statement.
> >>>> []
> >>>>> Well, I agree, you have to start somewhere... Too bad you hit a bug in
> >>>>> checkpatch.pl!
> >>>> Here too, not a bug in checkpatch.
> >>>>
> >>>> checkpatch output asks for a blank line after the
> >>>> "unsigned n" declaration, not before.
> >>> - RGB
> > - RGB

- RGB

--
Richard Guy Briggs <rbriggs@redhat.com>
Senior Software Engineer, Kernel Security, AMER ENG Base Operating Systems, Red Hat
Remote, Ottawa, Canada
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635, Alt: +1.613.693.0684x3545


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-10-22 15:01    [W:0.133 / U:0.368 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site