linux-kernel - Re: smatch 1.53 released

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: <20090604201029.GG1065@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Thu, 4 Jun 2009 22:10:29 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: smatch 1.53 released

Thanks for the description.

> So basically you grep for locking functions and you set the state
> based on that, then you grep for return statements and check that the

When you say "you" you mean smatch is doing that on its own
or does the user need to do that manually?

> Many of the locking false positives come from places where the unlock
> happens in a seperate function.  It should be relatively straight
> forward to make a list functions to say that if frob_the_module()
> returns -12, or -14 that implies it unlocked a certain lock.  I
> haven't done this yet.

How would one pass  that list of functions to smatch?

I understand correctly that right now it's not inter procedural in its
analysis?

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/