[PATCH v2 00/11] w1: coding style and checkpatch fixes
Hi, This is my first series of patches for the Linux kernel. I started by familiarizing myself with coding style and satisfying my inner OCD by cleaning the 1-wire subsystem. Cheers, Steffen --- Changes since v1: - addressed comments from Joe Perches: - re-ran checkpatch.pl in --strict mode - fixed commit messages to reflect more precisly the checkpatch warnings Steffen Vogel (12): w1: add SPDX identifiers w1: improve code-style by adhering tp 80 columns per line limit w1: add newlines after declarations w1: cleanup whitespaces according to coding style document w1: use octal numbers instead of macros for file mode w1: do not log errors about failed memory allocations w1: use __func__ for logging the function name w1: improve code-style of struct declarations w1: using linux instead of asm prefix for includes w1: use pointers instead of types to determine size of allocs w1: replace non-standard %LX format-string by %llX w1: fix typo in comment drivers/w1/masters/ds1wm.c | 5 +- drivers/w1/masters/ds2482.c| 7 +- drivers/w1/masters/ds2490.c| 16 +-- drivers/w1/masters/matrox_w1.c | 16 +-- drivers/w1/masters/mxc_w1.c| 10 +- drivers/w1/masters/omap_hdq.c | 7 +- drivers/w1/masters/w1-gpio.c | 5 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds2405.c | 12 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds2406.c | 4 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds2408.c | 4 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds2413.c | 4 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds2423.c | 15 +-- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds2431.c | 4 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds2433.c | 4 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds2438.c | 4 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds2780.c | 6 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds2781.c | 6 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds2805.c | 4 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds28e04.c | 4 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds28e17.c | 4 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_smem.c| 16 +-- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_therm.c | 16 +-- drivers/w1/w1.c| 272 +++-- drivers/w1/w1_family.c | 15 +-- drivers/w1/w1_int.c| 34 ++ drivers/w1/w1_internal.h | 11 +- drivers/w1/w1_io.c | 86 ++--- drivers/w1/w1_netlink.c| 64 +- drivers/w1/w1_netlink.h| 39 +++--- 29 files changed, 283 insertions(+), 411 deletions(-) -- 2.11.0
[PATCH v2 00/11] w1: coding style and checkpatch fixes
Hi, This is my first series of patches for the Linux kernel. I started by familiarizing myself with coding style and satisfying my inner OCD by cleaning the 1-wire subsystem. Cheers, Steffen --- Changes since v1: - addressed comments from Joe Perches: - re-ran checkpatch.pl in --strict mode - fixed commit messages to reflect more precisly the checkpatch warnings Steffen Vogel (12): w1: add SPDX identifiers w1: improve code-style by adhering tp 80 columns per line limit w1: add newlines after declarations w1: cleanup whitespaces according to coding style document w1: use octal numbers instead of macros for file mode w1: do not log errors about failed memory allocations w1: use __func__ for logging the function name w1: improve code-style of struct declarations w1: using linux instead of asm prefix for includes w1: use pointers instead of types to determine size of allocs w1: replace non-standard %LX format-string by %llX w1: fix typo in comment drivers/w1/masters/ds1wm.c | 5 +- drivers/w1/masters/ds2482.c| 7 +- drivers/w1/masters/ds2490.c| 16 +-- drivers/w1/masters/matrox_w1.c | 16 +-- drivers/w1/masters/mxc_w1.c| 10 +- drivers/w1/masters/omap_hdq.c | 7 +- drivers/w1/masters/w1-gpio.c | 5 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds2405.c | 12 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds2406.c | 4 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds2408.c | 4 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds2413.c | 4 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds2423.c | 15 +-- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds2431.c | 4 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds2433.c | 4 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds2438.c | 4 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds2780.c | 6 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds2781.c | 6 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds2805.c | 4 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds28e04.c | 4 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_ds28e17.c | 4 +- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_smem.c| 16 +-- drivers/w1/slaves/w1_therm.c | 16 +-- drivers/w1/w1.c| 272 +++-- drivers/w1/w1_family.c | 15 +-- drivers/w1/w1_int.c| 34 ++ drivers/w1/w1_internal.h | 11 +- drivers/w1/w1_io.c | 86 ++--- drivers/w1/w1_netlink.c| 64 +- drivers/w1/w1_netlink.h| 39 +++--- 29 files changed, 283 insertions(+), 411 deletions(-) -- 2.11.0
Re: w1: coding style and checkpatch fixes
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 5:30 PM Steffen Vogel wrote: > > For those who are interested. Rspamd, by default, includes the sender > address into the list of signed headers: Ugh. That's just broken. > There is RFC6377 which discusses this problem. On possible solution is > a mailing list service which understands DKIM and can check/sign the > messages. I think that is almost purely historical. People figured it out. The actual solution was that mailing lists just don't rewrite headers or bodies, but they do set that "sender" line (and add various new ones, like "List-ID" etc unsubscribe information). And that was exactly so that dkim would just work, without the list having to then add its own signing that just causes even more problems. [ And no, lkml isn't actually great at this - it will mess up whitespace on headers, so it only works with a relaxed/relaxed dkim signature. But honestly, if you use strict/strict, you're doing something wrong. It's a bad idea. Smtp was never whitespace-strict ] > This is actually according to RFC. Listing signed header-fields > multiple times prohibits them from beeing modified and resigned my other > MTAs. Again, that is mostly historical baggage. I don't think anybody actually does that. So yes, you'll find a lot of "what ifs" from ten years ago when people weren't actually using dkim and mailing lists didn't try to work with it. Mostly theoretical "this is how it could work". I've seen some truly horrendous suggestions for mailing lists, like always rewriting "From" headers etc exactly so that you can then make a new dkim signature. That would make for a really bad mailing list. .. and yes, I'm sure such bad mailing lists exist. Linus
Re: w1: coding style and checkpatch fixes
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 5:30 PM Steffen Vogel wrote: > > For those who are interested. Rspamd, by default, includes the sender > address into the list of signed headers: Ugh. That's just broken. > There is RFC6377 which discusses this problem. On possible solution is > a mailing list service which understands DKIM and can check/sign the > messages. I think that is almost purely historical. People figured it out. The actual solution was that mailing lists just don't rewrite headers or bodies, but they do set that "sender" line (and add various new ones, like "List-ID" etc unsubscribe information). And that was exactly so that dkim would just work, without the list having to then add its own signing that just causes even more problems. [ And no, lkml isn't actually great at this - it will mess up whitespace on headers, so it only works with a relaxed/relaxed dkim signature. But honestly, if you use strict/strict, you're doing something wrong. It's a bad idea. Smtp was never whitespace-strict ] > This is actually according to RFC. Listing signed header-fields > multiple times prohibits them from beeing modified and resigned my other > MTAs. Again, that is mostly historical baggage. I don't think anybody actually does that. So yes, you'll find a lot of "what ifs" from ten years ago when people weren't actually using dkim and mailing lists didn't try to work with it. Mostly theoretical "this is how it could work". I've seen some truly horrendous suggestions for mailing lists, like always rewriting "From" headers etc exactly so that you can then make a new dkim signature. That would make for a really bad mailing list. .. and yes, I'm sure such bad mailing lists exist. Linus
Re: w1: coding style and checkpatch fixes
Hi Linus, Thanks! Its hopefully fixed now. For those who are interested. Rspamd, by default, includes the sender address into the list of signed headers: https://www.rspamd.com/doc/modules/dkim_signing.html#default-sign_headers-after-173 > End result: the DKIM signature is guaranteed to fail after the email > has gone through a mailing list. There is RFC6377 which discusses this problem. On possible solution is a mailing list service which understands DKIM and can check/sign the messages. See: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6377 > You do have a few other oddities in there (the duplication of the > common fields), but they shouldn't matter. This is actually according to RFC. Listing signed header-fields multiple times prohibits them from beeing modified and resigned my other MTAs. Thanks again, Steffen On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 03:53:07PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > [ This is not about your patch series per se, only about your email settings ] > > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 3:20 PM Steffen Vogel wrote: > > > > This is my first series of patches for the Linux kernel. > > I started by familiarizing myself with coding style and > > satisfying my inner OCD by cleaning the 1-wire subsystem. > > Sadly, your DKIM setup is wrong, causing all the emails to be marked > as spam when they go through a mailing list. > > Your DKIM header looks like this: > > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=steffenvogel.de; > s=2017; t=1540764601; > h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: > message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: > content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: > in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; > > and the problem with that is the "sender" field in there. > > A good mailing list will not change the contents of your email, or > most of the other headers, but it *will* set the sender field to the > mailing list. > > > In other words, putting the sender field as part of the DKIM-checked > headers is just wrong. It's a somewhat common mistake, but it's still > wrong. I wonder where people get their setups from, because I think > there is some DKIM guide on the internet that is actively spreading > this bad behavior. > > > Linus
Re: w1: coding style and checkpatch fixes
Hi Linus, Thanks! Its hopefully fixed now. For those who are interested. Rspamd, by default, includes the sender address into the list of signed headers: https://www.rspamd.com/doc/modules/dkim_signing.html#default-sign_headers-after-173 > End result: the DKIM signature is guaranteed to fail after the email > has gone through a mailing list. There is RFC6377 which discusses this problem. On possible solution is a mailing list service which understands DKIM and can check/sign the messages. See: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6377 > You do have a few other oddities in there (the duplication of the > common fields), but they shouldn't matter. This is actually according to RFC. Listing signed header-fields multiple times prohibits them from beeing modified and resigned my other MTAs. Thanks again, Steffen On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 03:53:07PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > [ This is not about your patch series per se, only about your email settings ] > > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 3:20 PM Steffen Vogel wrote: > > > > This is my first series of patches for the Linux kernel. > > I started by familiarizing myself with coding style and > > satisfying my inner OCD by cleaning the 1-wire subsystem. > > Sadly, your DKIM setup is wrong, causing all the emails to be marked > as spam when they go through a mailing list. > > Your DKIM header looks like this: > > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=steffenvogel.de; > s=2017; t=1540764601; > h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: > message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: > content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: > in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; > > and the problem with that is the "sender" field in there. > > A good mailing list will not change the contents of your email, or > most of the other headers, but it *will* set the sender field to the > mailing list. > > > In other words, putting the sender field as part of the DKIM-checked > headers is just wrong. It's a somewhat common mistake, but it's still > wrong. I wonder where people get their setups from, because I think > there is some DKIM guide on the internet that is actively spreading > this bad behavior. > > > Linus
Re: w1: coding style and checkpatch fixes
[ This is not about your patch series per se, only about your email settings ] On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 3:20 PM Steffen Vogel wrote: > > This is my first series of patches for the Linux kernel. > I started by familiarizing myself with coding style and > satisfying my inner OCD by cleaning the 1-wire subsystem. Sadly, your DKIM setup is wrong, causing all the emails to be marked as spam when they go through a mailing list. Your DKIM header looks like this: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=steffenvogel.de; s=2017; t=1540764601; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; and the problem with that is the "sender" field in there. A good mailing list will not change the contents of your email, or most of the other headers, but it *will* set the sender field to the mailing list. End result: the DKIM signature is guaranteed to fail after the email has gone through a mailing list. In other words, putting the sender field as part of the DKIM-checked headers is just wrong. It's a somewhat common mistake, but it's still wrong. I wonder where people get their setups from, because I think there is some DKIM guide on the internet that is actively spreading this bad behavior. You do have a few other oddities in there (the duplication of the common fields), but they shouldn't matter. Linus
Re: w1: coding style and checkpatch fixes
[ This is not about your patch series per se, only about your email settings ] On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 3:20 PM Steffen Vogel wrote: > > This is my first series of patches for the Linux kernel. > I started by familiarizing myself with coding style and > satisfying my inner OCD by cleaning the 1-wire subsystem. Sadly, your DKIM setup is wrong, causing all the emails to be marked as spam when they go through a mailing list. Your DKIM header looks like this: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=steffenvogel.de; s=2017; t=1540764601; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; and the problem with that is the "sender" field in there. A good mailing list will not change the contents of your email, or most of the other headers, but it *will* set the sender field to the mailing list. End result: the DKIM signature is guaranteed to fail after the email has gone through a mailing list. In other words, putting the sender field as part of the DKIM-checked headers is just wrong. It's a somewhat common mistake, but it's still wrong. I wonder where people get their setups from, because I think there is some DKIM guide on the internet that is actively spreading this bad behavior. You do have a few other oddities in there (the duplication of the common fields), but they shouldn't matter. Linus
w1: coding style and checkpatch fixes
Hi, This is my first series of patches for the Linux kernel. I started by familiarizing myself with coding style and satisfying my inner OCD by cleaning the 1-wire subsystem. Steffen
w1: coding style and checkpatch fixes
Hi, This is my first series of patches for the Linux kernel. I started by familiarizing myself with coding style and satisfying my inner OCD by cleaning the 1-wire subsystem. Steffen
