Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: hardening: Add __counted_by regex

[Justin Stitt]

On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 1:57 PM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Kees,
>
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 10:20:41AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Since __counted_by annotations may also require that code be changed to
> > get initialization ordering correct, let's get an extra group of eyes on
> > code that is working on these annotations.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  MAINTAINERS | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> > index 737dcc7a2155..741285b8246e 100644
> > --- a/MAINTAINERS
> > +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> > @@ -11405,6 +11405,7 @@ F:    kernel/configs/hardening.config
> >  F:   mm/usercopy.c
> >  K:   \b(add|choose)_random_kstack_offset\b
> >  K:   \b__check_(object_size|heap_object)\b
> > +K:   \b__counted_by\b
> >
>
> Are you sure you want to volunteer to maintain every file that contains
> "__counted_by"?  That's what "K" does; get_maintainer.pl will list you (and
> linux-hardening@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) for every such file.

Do people call get_maintainer.pl on specific tree files as opposed to
invoking it against a .patch file? In the event of the .patch file
"K:" should only pick-up what's in the patch and not read into the
files outside of the context that the diff provides.

If needed, I could send a patch adding a "D:" which would only
consider patches and not tree files -- reducing noise.

>
> Other users of "K" have been surprised by this behavior.  It seems that most
> people expect it to only apply to patches, not to files.  Given that you're
> interested in using this functionality, have you considered updating
> checkpatch.pl to handle it in the way that you probably expect that it works?
>
> - Eric
>

Thanks
Justin