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

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.

>>>>>>>> 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