[Linux-kernel-mentees] [RFC PATCH] checkpatch: add shebang check to EXECUTE_PERMISSIONS

Lukas Bulwahn lukas.bulwahn at gmail.com
Mon Oct 12 14:16:30 UTC 2020



On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, Ujjwal Kumar wrote:

> On 12/10/20 11:47 am, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-10-12 at 11:19 +0530, Ujjwal Kumar wrote:
> >> checkpatch.pl checks for invalid EXECUTE_PERMISSIONS on source
> >> files. The script leverages filename extensions and its path in
> >> the repository to decide whether to allow execute permissions on
> >> the file or not.
> >>
> >> Based on current check conditions, a perl script file having
> >> execute permissions, without '.pl' extension in its filename
> >> and not belonging to 'scripts/' directory is reported as ERROR
> >> which is a false-positive.
> >>
> >> Adding a shebang check along with current conditions will make
> >> the check more generalised and improve checkpatch reports.
> >> To do so, without breaking the core design decision of checkpatch,
> >> we can fetch the first line from the patch itself and match it for
> >> a shebang pattern.
> >>
> >> There can be cases where the first line is not part of the patch.
> > 
> > For instance: a patch that only changes permissions
> > without changing any of the file content.
> > 
> >>
> >> In that case there may be a false-positive report but in the end we
> >> will have less false-positives as we will be handling some of the
> >> unhandled cases.
> > 
> >> Signed-off-by: Ujjwal Kumar <ujjwalkumar0501 at gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >> Apologies, I forgot to include linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org so I'm
> >> now resending.
> >>
> >>  scripts/checkpatch.pl | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > []
> >> @@ -1795,6 +1795,23 @@ sub get_stat_here {
> >>  	return $herectx;
> >>  }
> > 
> > First some style trivia:
> > 
> >> +sub get_shebang {
> >> +	my ($linenr, $realfile) = @_;
> >> +	my $rawline = "";
> >> +	my $shebang = "";
> >> +
> >> +	$rawline = raw_line($linenr, 3);
> >> +	if (defined $rawline &&
> >> +		$rawline =~ /^\@\@ -\d+(?:,\d+)? \+(\d+)(,(\d+))? \@\@/) {
> > 
> > alignment to open parenthesis please
> > 
> >> +		if (defined $1 && $1 == 1) {
> >> +			$shebang = raw_line($linenr, 4);
> >> +			$shebang = substr $shebang, 1;
> > 
> > parentheses around substr please.
> > 
> >> +		}
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	return $shebang;
> >> +}
> > 
> > And some real notes:
> > 
> > $realfile isn't used in this function so there doesn't
> > seem to be a reason to have it as an function argument.
> > 
> >> +
> >>  sub cat_vet {
> >>  	my ($vet) = @_;
> >>  	my ($res, $coded);
> >> @@ -2680,7 +2697,9 @@ sub process {
> >>  # Check for incorrect file permissions
> >>  		if ($line =~ /^new (file )?mode.*[7531]\d{0,2}$/) {
> > 
> > probably better here to use a capture group for the permissions
> > 
> > 		if ($line =~ /^new (?:file )?mode (\d+)$/) {
> > 			my $mode = substr($1, -3);
> 
> This
> 
> > 
> >>  			my $permhere = $here . "FILE: $realfile\n";
> >> +			my $shebang = get_shebang($linenr, $realfile);
> >>  			if ($realfile !~ m at scripts/@ &&
> > 
> > Maybe remove the $realfile directory test as
> > there are many source files that are not scripts
> > in this directory and its subdirectories.
> 
> this
> 
> > 
> >> +			    $shebang !~ /^#!\s*(\/\w)+.*/ &&
> > 
> > unnecessary capture group
> > 
> > and add
> > 
> > 			   $mode =~ /[1357]/ &&
> 
> this
> 
> > 
> >>  			    $realfile !~ /\.(py|pl|awk|sh)$/) {
> > 
> > No need for a a capture group here either. (existing defect)
> 
> and this.
> 
> > 
> >>  				ERROR("EXECUTE_PERMISSIONS",
> >>  				      "do not set execute permissions for source files\n" . $permhere);
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> Should these new changes go as a separate patch or can they be
> included in the next iteration of this patch?
> 
>

Ujjwal, please consider the following 'strategy':

- Send one patch to clean up the existing implementation as Joe requested.

With those 'credit points' for cleaning up the implementation, you then:

- Send another clean patch for the additional functionality you propose

We can probably easily accept the first cleanup, and then dig into the 
review of the additional functionality.

Lukas


More information about the Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list