linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scripts/coccinelle: modernize &

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, 19 Feb 2016 13:25:05 +0100
From:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
	Harish Chegondi <harish.chegondi@...el.com>,
	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
	Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
	Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts/coccinelle: modernize &

> & is no longer allowed in column 0, since Coccinelle 1.0.4.

This information corresponds to the support for handling of conjunctions
in the semantic patch language which was added with the software
release "Coccinelle 1.0.3".
https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2015-October/002634.html

> diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/iterators/use_after_iter.cocci b/scripts/coccinelle/iterators/use_after_iter.cocci
> index f085f59..ce8cc9c 100644
> --- a/scripts/coccinelle/iterators/use_after_iter.cocci
> +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/iterators/use_after_iter.cocci
> @@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ list_remove_head(x,c,...)
>  |
>  sizeof(<+...c...+>)
>  |
> -&c->member
> + &c->member

The added space character is not in the first column of this SmPL script.

* Can it be that the additional character will be transformed according to
  special pretty-printing rules?
  https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/37

* Is such a change a possible workaround for open issues around
  the message "minus: parse error" (or software improvements
  which were developed in the meantime)?

>  |
>  c = E
>  |

Does the shown tweak need any further considerations?

Regards,
Markus