linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: assign signed result to unsigned variable

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: <56056D65.7070205@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:	Fri, 25 Sep 2015 17:51:01 +0200
From:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>
Cc:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
	Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
	Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	cocci@...teme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: assign signed result to unsigned variable

>>> +@rs@
>>> +position p;
>>> +typedef bool, u8, u16, u32, u64, s8, s16, s32, s64;
>>> +{char, short int, int, long, long long, s8, s16, s32, s64} vs;
>> Can it matter to specify also the type modifier "signed" in this SmPL approach?
>> http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/docs/main_grammar005.html#ctype_qualif
> According to my tests it does not matter.
> Btw I should replace short int, with short,

I have got an other view on such an implementation detail around
explicit SmPL specifications.


> to allow catch short intergers.

Do you assume that the Coccinelle software will handle more data type
variants for you automatically?


>>> +@@
>>> +
>>> +vu@p = vs
>>> +
>>> +@r@
>>> +position rs.p;
>>> +identifier v, f;
>>> +statement S1, S2;
>>> +expression e;
>>> +@@
>>> +
>>> +*v@p = f(...);
>> Do you try to check here if the value receiver is at the same source code
>> position from the SmPL rule "rs"?
> Yes.

I imagine that there is an open issue in this SmPL approach then.
How should a return value from a function call and a variable access
work at the same place?


> Is there better way to do it?

Do you need to distinguish source code positions a bit more with
corresponding SmPL variables?

Regards,
Markus
--
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/