linux-hardening - Re: [cocci] spatch --jobs N missing matches?

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2209280722150.2844@hadrien>
Date:   Wed, 28 Sep 2022 07:23:44 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
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, 27 Sep 2022, Kees Cook wrote:

>
> 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.)

OK, long, but at least you get the result.

> > [...]
> > 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. :)

Actually, that is the only purpose of depends on.  Your original rule had
a depends on level2 that was unnecessary, since the rule couldn't match if
some metavariables from level2 were not bound.

julia