linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/12] staging: lustre: fid: Use !x to check for kzalloc failure

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:	Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:51:45 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
cc:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
	"devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
	"Dilger, Andreas" <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Drokin, Oleg" <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
	"lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org" <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] staging: lustre: fid: Use !x to check for kzalloc
 failure



On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Dan Carpenter wrote:

> Yes.  I know Al's thoughts and kernel style.
>
> But Alan Cox and Andreas have both said they think (x == NULL) can help
> you avoid some kind of boolean vs pointer bugs.  I've had co-workers who
> did massive seds changing !foo to foo == NULL on our code base.  But
> I've never seen a real life example of a bug this fixes.
>
> To be honest, I've never seen a real life proof that (!foo) code is less
> buggy.  I should look through the kbuild mailbox...  Hm...  But my other
> idea of setting up code style readability testing website is also a good
> one.
>
> Linux kernel style is based on Joe Perches finding that 80% of the code
> prefers one way or the other.  That's a valid method for determining
> code style.  I bet it normally picks the more readable style but it
> would be interesting to measure it more formally.

On today's linux-next, I find 3218 tests on the result of kmalloc etc
using NULL and 14429 without, making 82% without.  The complete semantic
patch is shown below.

julia

@initialize:ocaml@
@@

let withnull = ref 0
let withoutnull = ref 0

@r1 disable is_null, isnt_null1 exists@
expression x,e;
position p;
statement S1,S2;
@@

x = \(kmalloc\|kzalloc\|kcalloc\|devm_kmalloc\|devm_kzalloc\)(...)
... when != x = e
    when != &x
if@p (<+...\(x == NULL\|x != NULL\|NULL == x\|NULL != x\)...+>) S1 else S2

@r2 disable not_ptr1, not_ptr2 exists@
expression x,e;
position p;
statement S1,S2;
@@

x = \(kmalloc\|kzalloc\|kcalloc\|devm_kmalloc\|devm_kzalloc\)(...)
... when != x = e
    when != &x
if@p (<+...\(!x\|x && ...\|x || ...\)...+>) S1 else S2

@script:ocaml@
_p << r1.p;
@@
withnull := !withnull + 1

@script:ocaml@
_p << r2.p;
@@
withoutnull := !withoutnull + 1

@finalize:ocaml@
@@

Printf.printf "withnull %d withoutnull %d\n" !withnull !withoutnull

--
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/