linux-kernel - Re: The sheer number of sparse warnings in the kernel

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: <530F0F6C.4040401@roeck-us.net>
Date:	Thu, 27 Feb 2014 02:11:56 -0800
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: The sheer number of sparse warnings in the kernel


>> So getting this to the point where it is genuinely useful and can be
>> made a ubiquitous part of the Linux development process is going to take
>> more work and probably involve improvements to sparse so we can indicate
>> in the kernel sources when something is okay or removing completely
>> bogus warnings, and so on.
>
> Yes, for some areas of the kernel it will take some work, but for
> others, sparse works really well.  As an example, building all of

Works quite nicely for me. I run both spatch and smatch on drivers/hwmon
and (partially) on drivers/watchdog. There is only one (false) warning
in hwmon from spatch, plus about a dozen smatch warnings. I find it very
valuable; even if warnings are false positives they often point to
less than perfect code.

I filter out some noise from smatch, but at least so far I did not have
to do any filtering for spatch.

Guenter

--
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/