linux-kernel - Re: [Cocci] spatch for trivial pointer comparison style?

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]

Date:	Fri, 14 Nov 2014 07:06:14 +0100 (CET)
From:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
cc:	cocci <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Cocci] spatch for trivial pointer comparison style?

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Joe Perches wrote:

> I added a checkpatch entry for this.
> Maybe some cocci test like this would be useful?
> 
> @@
> type t;
> t *p;
> @@
> -	p == NULL
> +	!p
> 
> @@
> type t;
> t *p;
> @@
> -	p != NULL
> +	p
> 
> @@
> type t;
> t *p;
> @@
> -	NULL == p
> +	!p
> 
> @@
> type t;
> t *p;
> @@
> -	NULL != p
> +	p

This was discussed many years ago.  I don't think that the change is 
desirable in all cases.  There are functions like kmalloc where NULL means 
failure and !p seems like the reasonable choice.  But there maybe other 
cases where NULL is somehow a meaningful value.  

Here is a link to the part of the discussion:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/27/103

julia
--
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/