linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH -next v2 1/9] coccinelle: Add rules to find str_true

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

Message-ID: <95846cbd-c0a0-433d-95d2-82792a664e3d@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 10:23:02 +0800
From: Hongbo Li <lihongbo22@...wei.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
CC: <kees@...nel.org>, <andy@...nel.org>, <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
	<linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>, <cocci@...ia.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v2 1/9] coccinelle: Add rules to find
 str_true_false() replacements



On 2024/9/10 0:00, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2024, Hongbo Li wrote:
> 
>> After str_true_false() has been introduced in the tree,
>> we can add rules for finding places where str_true_false()
>> can be used. A simple test can find over 10 locations.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hongbo Li <lihongbo22@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>   scripts/coccinelle/api/string_choices.cocci | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/api/string_choices.cocci b/scripts/coccinelle/api/string_choices.cocci
>> index 5e729f187f22..50329c4c8acd 100644
>> --- a/scripts/coccinelle/api/string_choices.cocci
>> +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/api/string_choices.cocci
>> @@ -85,3 +85,26 @@ e << str_down_up_r.E;
>>   @@
>>
>>   coccilib.report.print_report(p[0], "opportunity for str_down_up(%s)" % e)
>> +
>> +@..._true_false depends on patch@
>> +expression E;
>> +@@
>> +(
> 
> There is no need for the above.  That is only needed if there is a
> disjunction, ie a set of possible changes.  Likewise no need for the ),
> and the same in the next rule.

Do you mean str_true_false_r is enough, not need for str_true_false? I 
noticed it was written this way before, so I've kept consistent with the 
previous writing style.

Thanks,
Hongbo

> 
> julia
> 
>> +-      ((E) ? "true" : "false")
>> ++      str_true_false(E)
>> +)
>> +
>> +@..._true_false_r depends on !patch exists@
>> +expression E;
>> +position P;
>> +@@
>> +(
>> +*      ((E@P) ? "true" : "false")
>> +)
>> +
>> +@...ipt:python depends on report@
>> +p << str_true_false_r.P;
>> +e << str_true_false_r.E;
>> +@@
>> +
>> +coccilib.report.print_report(p[0], "opportunity for str_true_false(%s)" % e)
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>
>>