On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 1:57 PM Eric Biggers <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > --- > > 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 > [email protected]) 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
