On Tue, 2017-12-05 at 20:44 +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 11:24:24PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-12-05 at 08:17 +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote: > > > Usage of the new %px specifier potentially leaks sensitive > > > inforamtion. Printing kernel addresses exposes the kernel layout in > > > > information
> I don't understand this comment? Do you mean the wording is wrong? > I'll re-word as suggested below. It's just a spelling typo correction. [] > > > Suggested-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]> > > > Signed-off-by: Tobin C. Harding <[email protected]> > > > Co-Developed-by: Joe Perches <[email protected]> > > > Are you happy with this tagging? Needs your signed-off-by still. I think signatures tags are pretty freeform and I'm not particularly concerned about them. I think Andrew Morton may object and change it or remove it. Have an: Acked-by: Joe Perches <[email protected]> if the spellos and style bits are changed. > > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl > > > > [] > > > @@ -1612,6 +1612,17 @@ sub raw_line { > > > return $line; > > > } > > > > > > +sub stat_real { > > > + my ($linenr, $lc) = @_; > > > + > > > + my $stat_real = raw_line($linenr, 0); > > > + for (my $count = $linenr + 1; $count <= $lc; $count++) { > > > + $stat_real = $stat_real . "\n" . raw_line($count, 0); > > > + } > > > + > > > + return $stat_real; > > > +} > > > > If you are going to make a subroutine of this > > there are some other places it could be used too. > > Ok, I'm not super happy with sub routine name. Have you a better suggestion? Maybe get_stat_real? > > > + > > > sub cat_vet { > > > my ($vet) = @_; > > > my ($res, $coded); > > > @@ -5747,24 +5758,35 @@ sub process { > > > defined $stat && > > > $stat =~ /^\+(?![^\{]*\{\s*).*\b(\w+)\s*\(.*$String\s*,/s && > > > $1 !~ /^_*volatile_*$/) { > > > - my $bad_extension = ""; > > > + my ($specifier, $extension, $stat_real); > > > > My preference is not to define multiple variables on a single line. > > I'd rather have: > > my $specifier; > > my $extension; > > my $stat_real; > > No problem, is this a kernel wide thing or just a checkpatch thing (so I > can follow your lead if need be in leaking_addresses.pl). Or is it the > same as we do in C, in which case $extension and $specifier could be on > a single line but not $stat_real? It's a personal preference. Perl can have pretty cryptic constructs and I prefer reading it like C.
