linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: add style check for assignment in if

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:	Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:33:12 -0400
From:	Kris Borer <kborer@...il.com>
To:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:	Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>, nicolas.palix@...g.fr,
	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	cocci@...teme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: add style check for assignment in if

I apologize, I misunderstood your email. It is the same as RFC v2.

On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015, Kris Borer wrote:
>
>> Add a semantic patch for fixing some cases of checkpatch.pl error:
>>
>> ERROR: do not use assignment in if condition
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
>
> Sorry, but I'm not done reviewing it.  I have a lot of changes to propose.
> Is this different than the RFC v2?
>
> julia
>
>> Signed-off-by: Kris Borer <kborer@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  scripts/coccinelle/style/assignment_in_if.cocci | 92 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 92 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 scripts/coccinelle/style/assignment_in_if.cocci
>>
>> diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/style/assignment_in_if.cocci b/scripts/coccinelle/style/assignment_in_if.cocci
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..22ab161
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/style/assignment_in_if.cocci
>> @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
>> +// find checkpatch.pl errors of the type:
>> +//   ERROR: do not use assignment in if condition
>> +//
>> +// This script is designed to correct code where assignments exist in if
>> +// conditions. It is only capable of handling a subset of such problems.
>> +//
>> +// For example:
>> +//
>> +//   if(result = myfun())
>> +//
>> +// would become:
>> +//
>> +//   result = myfun();
>> +//   if(result)
>> +//
>> +// Confidence: Moderate
>> +
>> +
>> +// if ( ret = call() )
>> +@if1@
>> +identifier i;
>> +expression E;
>> +statement S1, S2;
>> +@@
>> +
>> ++ i = E;
>> +  if (
>> +- (i = E)
>> ++ i
>> +  ) S1 else S2
>> +
>> +
>> +// if ( (ret = call()) < 0 )
>> +@if2@
>> +identifier i;
>> +expression E;
>> +statement S1, S2;
>> +binary operator b;
>> +@@
>> +
>> ++ i = E;
>> +  if (
>> +- (i = E)
>> ++ i
>> +  b ... ) S1 else S2
>> +
>> +// if ( ptr->fun && (ret = ptr->fun()) < 0 )
>> +@if3@
>> +identifier i, i2;
>> +expression E1, E2;
>> +constant c;
>> +binary operator b;
>> +@@
>> +
>> ++ if( E1->i ) {
>> ++    i2 = E2;
>> ++    if (i2 b c) {
>> +- if( E1->i && ((i2 = E2) b c) ) {
>> +  ...
>> +- }
>> ++    }
>> ++ }
>> +
>> +// if ( (ret = call()) < 0 && ret != -1 )
>> +@if4@
>> +identifier i;
>> +expression E, E2;
>> +statement S1, S2;
>> +binary operator b;
>> +@@
>> +
>> ++ i = E;
>> +  if (
>> +- (i = E)
>> ++ i
>> +  b
>> +  ... && E2 ) S1 else S2
>> +
>> +// if ( (ret = call()) < 0 && ret != -1 && ret != -2 )
>> +@if5@
>> +identifier i;
>> +expression E, E2, E3;
>> +statement S1, S2;
>> +binary operator b;
>> +@@
>> +
>> ++ i = E;
>> +  if (
>> +- (i = E)
>> ++ i
>> +  b
>> +  ... && E2 && E3 ) S1 else S2
>> --
>> 1.9.1
>>
>>
--
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/