From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from EUR01-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-ve1eur01on0083.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.1.83]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A984A8E5F for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 12:49:08 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=coriant.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-coriant-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=qUO5/SgIiB33IDNpem+zPQKSgXK5c6TGK/lRUkOizVc=; b=RwAMAFlFqB5o5yjlwuQIVi3ZCrsPzWq6dJv174IiCDhRNSaL/8hFWXRI4qNo9qwMy1LndNq4/2Ho0NTg7P1P7eRw4+nzuRl6FcZB15nmRtHwQALsVTJvr2hW38ogJDvkvQG0KAKmoesCsNY8KldjatzbklOrLltLMCeQZe4vxy4= Received: from AM0PR04MB4291.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (52.134.126.146) by AM0PR04MB4324.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (52.134.126.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.696.13; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:49:07 +0000 Received: from AM0PR04MB4291.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::814a:81f9:1d80:bdd7]) by AM0PR04MB4291.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::814a:81f9:1d80:bdd7%13]) with mapi id 15.20.0675.015; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:49:07 +0000 From: "Kuusisaari, Juhamatti" To: Bruce Richardson , Thomas Monjalon CC: Scott Branden , Stephen Hemminger , "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] checkpatch: don't complain about SPDX tag format Thread-Index: AQHT1pheqjEP+rWz8UK2vUMHq8GrrKQFhPGAgAACEYCAALH4gIAAAE9A Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:49:07 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20180417214919.8246-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <2994859.WyYqfpDCHC@xps> <4245883.kl7A9e8lPX@xps> <20180418085605.GA111744@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20180418085605.GA111744@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: fi-FI, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: intel.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;intel.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=coriant.com; x-originating-ip: [138.111.134.175] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM0PR04MB4324; 7:M6UjoWV0ous7mGWTQmnTzFWswPl2Apgp7MD9tR962WmmNfTSuZDdwc3daXNsL6fcVg11no+YCFzqmkXTpagwSsw3QE+rkNQUhTTcO2eAz7jfXUh3eQ9D3inVgYg2H2lTyJFV4cwNZiY9t3e9/Qph8EDR/JkvPoD+t9YK8cR1C4xT67WSRIvB/Mu9gpduWuHecABo7Dmh1hGkm1tgzWmlFjCwUCftC8cm0i5ybRtqoj/zY1/goOhMyPNa2BYdsO4h x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS; x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(5600026)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(48565401081)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:AM0PR04MB4324; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM0PR04MB4324: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(788757137089); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040522)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(3231232)(944501327)(52105095)(6055026)(6041310)(20161123558120)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123560045)(20161123564045)(20161123562045)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:AM0PR04MB4324; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:AM0PR04MB4324; x-forefront-prvs: 06469BCC91 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(396003)(376002)(366004)(346002)(39380400002)(39860400002)(377424004)(305945005)(86362001)(72206003)(6246003)(74316002)(110136005)(5250100002)(93886005)(66066001)(53936002)(54906003)(316002)(6116002)(102836004)(2906002)(6506007)(53546011)(55016002)(8936002)(9686003)(3846002)(6436002)(76176011)(476003)(59450400001)(25786009)(7696005)(81166006)(11346002)(446003)(186003)(4326008)(26005)(33656002)(478600001)(5660300001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM0PR04MB4324; H:AM0PR04MB4291.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; MLV:sfv; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: UuGEyc/QaV0u/UHvHr5C42MSekrbzqqQuvdF62rHL1gElX1eW6q/TMoJ4QzHEmUaXsfvv6wV4HieMJIxXVzgubkNkhaB52Vtff0yWj1E4Zy1+ad+adybeqwlzi7r+49VriJ3SpHsbGIWixEXIRgj+1fCeJsjMukmMoxmY+CgEx1rx0zn7NC6IMj5QL4fe+Ji spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 3ea106ac-906c-4751-4bbe-08d5a51a02b1 X-OriginatorOrg: coriant.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 3ea106ac-906c-4751-4bbe-08d5a51a02b1 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 18 Apr 2018 10:49:07.5074 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 76595477-907e-4695-988b-a6b39087332d X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM0PR04MB4324 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] checkpatch: don't complain about SPDX tag format X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:49:08 -0000 Hello, > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:19:07AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 18/04/2018 00:11, Scott Branden: > > > On 18-04-17 03:06 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > 17/04/2018 23:49, Stephen Hemminger: > > > >> IMHO would have been better to use the kernel SPDX style and keep > > > >> the check but that appears to be a minority opinion. > > > > > > > > I think it is better to work on checkpatch itself. > > > > When defining our SPDX style, Linux one was not definitive. > > > > Do you think we can ask the Linux community to support our SPDX sty= le? > > > > > > > I think it better to simply follow the Linux community defacto style > > > rather than go your own way. > > > > But our way is better! :) > > And it has been decided in the Technical Board. > > >=20 > As a general issue, I think we could do with having our own checkpatch-li= ke > script for performing addition DPDK-specific code-checks *after* Linux > checkpatch ones. That is, reuse Linux check patch checks as much as possi= ble, > but have other checks too. >=20 > For example, check for use of strcpy or strncpy (or snprintf with "%s") a= nd > suggest replacing with strlcpy. If we did have our own extension script, = we > could put our own SPDX format check there too. >=20 > Thoughts, or any volunteers to look into this? In addition, the checkpatches.sh could be improved so that it actually chec= ks that a proper file is found behind the selected env variable. I am plann= ing to add this check (as it bite me just yesterday). Speaking of strlcpy, I do think that it has a caveat* that everybody should= be aware of: depending on implementation, it may read unintended memory re= gions when the source is not properly null terminated (like in Unix domain = sockets, or just by other mistake). It may be a bad idea just blindly repla= ce everything with strlcpy, without making sure that copied buffers are rea= lly null-terminated in the first place or making sure the strlcpy version i= s really a one that does not have this problem. As it depends on dynamic li= braries, making sure may be difficult. =20 Some may argue that this is unlikely and thus irrelevant. Why do I know abo= ut it then? :) Needless to say, strncpy or snprintf do not have _this_ prob= lem, although they have their own issues. Internally without dynamic libs D= PDK rte_strlcpy uses snprintf which should be safe, though. > /Bruce -- Juhamatti * A caveat on some implementations:=20 ... /* Not enough room in dst, add NUL and traverse rest of src */ if (n =3D=3D 0) { if (siz !=3D 0) *d =3D '\0'; /* NUL-terminate dst */ while (*s++) <- what happens when s is not null-terminated? ; } ... Another one: ... return n + strlen (src); <- what happens when src is not null-terminate= d? ...