archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ujjwal Kumar <>
To: Lukas Bulwahn <>
Subject: Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [RFC PATCH] checkpatch: add shebang check to EXECUTE_PERMISSIONS
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 00:02:49 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2010112017490.412@felia>

On 11/10/20 11:49 pm, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2020, Ujjwal Kumar wrote:
>> On 11/10/20 11:20 pm, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2020, Ujjwal Kumar wrote:
>>>> checkpatch script 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 without
>>>> '.pl' extension in its filename and not belonging to 'scripts/'
>>>> directory is reported as ERROR which is a false-positive.
>>>> The script can correctly handle patches with mode changes and
>>>> shebang line if shebang is taken into account. So, along with
>>>> the current check conditions, adding the shebang check in the
>>>> check conditions can improve the reports of the script.
>>> I think one of the core design decisions of is:
>>> can run on a patch, even if the patch does not apply to the 
>>> current repository version that is checked out.
>> From our past conversation I remember about this particular point.
>>> It solely uses the information in the patch, and does not try to guess how 
>>> it could be applied etc.
>> I am fetching the 'shebang' from the patch itself (therefore I do not 
>> understand how does the proposed change violate that design decision?).
> Okay, maybe I misread the patch; so, where those the first line come from?
> What if that first line is not part of the patch?

In that case there might be a false-positive. But I tried to handle such cases 
where the first line is in the patch itself.

Okay, so there are total of 4 cases with file mode change:
1. mode change + create + modify
2. mode change + create
3. mode change + modify
4. mode change

the patch will handle all cases of type 1 and some cases of type 3.
Other cases won't be handled because they cannot be handled without 
breaking the core design decision.

I do have references to say that the cases 2 and 4 are

Which I thought is an improvement over current logic used for the check.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Ujjwal Kumar
Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list

  reply	other threads:[~2020-10-11 18:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-10-11 16:21 [Linux-kernel-mentees] [RFC PATCH] checkpatch: add shebang check to EXECUTE_PERMISSIONS Ujjwal Kumar
2020-10-11 16:40 ` Ujjwal Kumar
2020-10-11 17:50 ` Lukas Bulwahn
2020-10-11 18:14   ` Ujjwal Kumar
2020-10-11 18:19     ` Lukas Bulwahn
2020-10-11 18:32       ` Ujjwal Kumar [this message]
2020-10-11 18:35         ` Lukas Bulwahn
2020-10-12  4:36 Ujjwal Kumar
2020-10-12  5:25 ` Lukas Bulwahn
2020-10-12  5:49 Ujjwal Kumar
2020-10-12  6:17 ` Joe Perches
2020-10-12 13:52   ` Ujjwal Kumar
2020-10-12 14:16     ` Lukas Bulwahn
2020-10-12 15:23       ` Joe Perches
2020-10-12 15:08     ` Joe Perches

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).