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

[Scott Matheina <scott@matheina.com>]

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 had just cloned Linus' repo, so v4.3rc6.
>
>>>>>>>>   	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@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