Message ID | 20220506160513.523257-1-mic@digikod.net (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Landlock: Clean up coding style with clang-format | expand |
Hi Mickaël, (Answering in v1 since I want to quote something in this cover letter) On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 6:03 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote: > > I used a simple coding style for the initial Landlock code. However, > this may be subject to different interpretations. To avoid relying > on tacit knowledge or text editors for these kind of rules, let's > automate it as much as possible thanks to clang-format. This makes the > code formatting simple, consistent and impersonal. Thanks for moving your subsystem to `clang-format`. I am glad you found it useful. > Several versions of clang-format can be use but they may have (small) > different behaviors for undefined/new configuration parts. After > testing different versions, I picked clang-format-14 which is relatively > new and fixes a bug present in version 11 to 13 (visible in the Landlock > formatted code). Which was the bug? Cheers, Miguel
On 09/05/2022 11:06, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > Hi Mickaël, > > (Answering in v1 since I want to quote something in this cover letter) There is only a v1 for this specific series, but other series (with higher versions) are now relying on this one. ;) > > On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 6:03 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote: >> >> I used a simple coding style for the initial Landlock code. However, >> this may be subject to different interpretations. To avoid relying >> on tacit knowledge or text editors for these kind of rules, let's >> automate it as much as possible thanks to clang-format. This makes the >> code formatting simple, consistent and impersonal. > > Thanks for moving your subsystem to `clang-format`. I am glad you > found it useful. > >> Several versions of clang-format can be use but they may have (small) >> different behaviors for undefined/new configuration parts. After >> testing different versions, I picked clang-format-14 which is relatively >> new and fixes a bug present in version 11 to 13 (visible in the Landlock >> formatted code). > > Which was the bug? You can check it by running clang-format-X on security/landlock/fs.c [1] and you'll get different results for this hunk (only): --- a/security/landlock/fs.c +++ b/security/landlock/fs.c @@ -688,7 +688,7 @@ static inline access_mask_t maybe_remove(const struct dentry *const dentry) if (d_is_negative(dentry)) return 0; return d_is_dir(dentry) ? LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REMOVE_DIR : - LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REMOVE_FILE; + LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REMOVE_FILE; } /** [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mic/linux.git/log/?h=landlock-wip