Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fixed Trivial Warnings in file: Deleted Spaces prior to tabs, and added lines. modified: kernel/auditfilter.c

[Richard Guy Briggs]

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?

> >>>>>>  	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

--
Richard Guy Briggs <rbriggs@xxxxxxxxxx>
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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/