netdev - Re: gianfar: Delete unnecessary variable initialisations in gfar_ethflow_to_filer

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 15 Jan 2016 18:15:14 +0100
From:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@...escale.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: gianfar: Delete unnecessary variable initialisations in
 gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table()

>>> This is a write only variable.  We can just remove it.
>>
>> Can a static source code analysis tool like the software "http://smatch.sourceforge.net/"
>> detect that such a variable is not read by this function implementation so far?
> 
> No,

I imagine that there are a few tools available which can point such update candidates out.
There are various software development challenges to consider.

> but a human can.

Some software developers and source code reviewers are struggling with mentioned
implementation details as usual. Do they also wonder how the discussed variable assignment
was left over in a specific function?

> I am going to be honest, and say that I am completely ignoring most of
> your static checker patches.

I am curious if you would reconsider the affected source code places once more
when you will be notified about related issues by other tools or persons.

> You don't put enough care and consideration into them,

Would you like to explain this impression a bit more?

> and I really don't have time to waste on looking at something like that.

Thanks for your feedback.

Various open issues are competing for our attention as usual.

Regards,
Markus