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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <202209271425.50502D365C@keescook> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 17:06:34 -0700 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr> Cc: cocci@...ia.fr, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org> Subject: Re: [cocci] spatch --jobs N missing matches? On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 11:09:35PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > The problem is fixed in github. Coccinelle was doing some caching of > header files, that was not desirable in the case where one actually wants > to match the code, and not just get type information. Thank you for the fix! I can confirm things appear to be working correctly now. (And took 124 minutes to run.) > [...] > Actually, there are not that many memcpys in the considered code. Then > there are not that many that refer to the last element of a structure. If > level2 produces nothing, then level 1 should not be applied. > > In the original rule order, all of the pairs of a flexible structure and > any structure are considered, regardless of whether any memcpys are > present. Ah! Yes, I keep forgetting to start with the narrowest part first. :P I also forget that I can do a "depends" on something that has no other matches, but if it's built on prior rules that I use in later rules, then it limits that rule directly. I haven't quite managed to think sideways hard enough. :) -- Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists