From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757498AbbJVMxd (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:53:33 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51514 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757472AbbJVMx3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:53:29 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:53:25 -0400 From: Richard Guy Briggs To: Scott Matheina Cc: Joe Perches , Paul Moore , linux-audit@redhat.com, trivial@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fixed Trivial Warnings in file: Deleted Spaces prior to tabs, and added lines. modified: kernel/auditfilter.c Message-ID: <20151022125325.GA16212@madcap2.tricolour.ca> References: <1444528675-13184-1-git-send-email-scott@matheina.com> <10476084.rIoW7K08e6@sifl> <5623DBF5.8020500@matheina.com> <20151019161035.GB11501@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <1445435918.9220.9.camel@perches.com> <20151021153339.GA5269@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <56282E2E.4010207@matheina.com> <20151022021500.GD5269@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <562857B2.4070408@matheina.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <562857B2.4070408@matheina.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 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