RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

[Roberts, William C]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roberts, William C [mailto:william.c.roberts@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 3:49 PM
> To: Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; apw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; kernel-
> hardening@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [kernel-hardening] RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead
> of %pK usage
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe Perches [mailto:joe@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 2:21 PM
> > To: Roberts, William C <william.c.roberts@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; apw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; kernel-
> > hardening@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 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?
> 
> I'm for merging your patch as is, and then take up the fact that $stat is not
> working correctly as a separate change, does that seem reasonable?

I haven't seen anything on list about your patch, are we kind of stuck or do you
have some plan on adding your stat patch in the future?