Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-208424-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Message-ID: <a38e45d210f07e47bfde70e366d23f9755290d25.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 RESEND] checkpatch: check for missing Fixes tags
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>, Andrew Morton
	 <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>, Andy Whitcroft
 <apw@canonical.com>,  Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@gmail.com>, Lukas
 Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>,  linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg
 Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,  Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
 Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>, Tom
 Gall <tom.gall@linaro.org>,  kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:10:06 -0700
In-Reply-To: <Zmbf3AaZh4sbPhYB@moroto>
References: <Zmbf3AaZh4sbPhYB@moroto>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.48.4 (3.48.4-1.fc38) 
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Mon, 2024-06-10 at 14:13 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> This check looks for common words that probably indicate a patch
> is a fix.  For now the regex is:
>=20
> 	(?:(?:BUG: K.|UB)SAN: |Call Trace:|stable\@|syzkaller)/)
>=20
> Why are stable patches encouraged to have a fixes tag?  Some people mark
> their stable patches as "# 5.10" etc.  This is useful but a Fixes tag is
> still a good idea.  For example, the Fixes tag helps in review.  It
> helps people to not cherry-pick buggy patches without also
> cherry-picking the fix.
>=20
> Also if a bug affects the 5.7 kernel some people will round it up to
> 5.10+ because 5.7 is not supported on kernel.org.  It's possible the Bad
> Binder bug was caused by this sort of gap where companies outside of
> kernel.org are supporting different kernels from kernel.org.
>=20
> Should it be counted as a Fix when a patch just silences harmless
> WARN_ON() stack trace.  Yes.  Definitely.
>=20
> Is silencing compiler warnings a fix?  It seems unfair to the original
> authors, but we use -Werror now, and warnings break the build so let's
> just add Fixes tags.  I tell people that silencing static checker
> warnings is not a fix but the rules on this vary by subsystem.
>=20
> Is fixing a minor LTP issue (Linux Test Project) a fix?  Probably?  It's
> hard to know what to do if the LTP test has technically always been
> broken.
>=20
> One clear false positive from this check is when someone updated their
> debug output and included before and after Call Traces.  Or when crashes
> are introduced deliberately for testing.  In those cases, you should
> just ignore checkpatch.
[]
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
[]
> +# These indicate a bug fix
> +		if (!$in_header_lines && !$is_patch &&
> +			$line =3D~ /^This reverts commit/) {
> +			$is_revert =3D 1;
> +		}
> +
> +		if (!$in_header_lines && !$is_patch &&
> +		    $line =3D~ /(?:(?:BUG: K.|UB)SAN: |Call Trace:|stable\@|syzkaller)=
/) {
> +			$needs_fixes_tag =3D 1;

Maybe use
		    $line =3D~ /((?:(?:BUG: K.|UB)SAN: |Call Trace:|stable\@|syzkaller))/=
) {
			$needs_fixes_tag =3D $1;

> @@ -7697,6 +7715,12 @@ sub process {
>  		ERROR("NOT_UNIFIED_DIFF",
>  		      "Does not appear to be a unified-diff format patch\n");
>  	}
> +	if ($is_patch && $has_commit_log && $chk_fixes_tag) {
> +		if ($needs_fixes_tag && !$is_revert && !$fixes_tag) {

and

+		if ($needs_fixes_tag ne "" && !$is_revert && !$fixes_tag) {

> +			WARN("MISSING_FIXES_TAG",
> +			     "This looks like a fix but there is no Fixes: tag\n");

and

			     "The commit message has '$needs_fixes_tag', perhaps it also needs a=
 'Fixes:' tag?\n");