linux-kernel - Re: iio: Rename a jump label in iio_buffer_store

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:   Sun, 25 Sep 2016 17:49:21 +0100
From:   Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:     linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: iio: Rename a jump label in iio_buffer_store_watermark()

On 25/09/16 16:17, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>> It's not an inappropriate identifier as it stands. The point is
>> that it could be better.
> 
> Thanks for your interest in clarifying further improvement possibilities.
> 
> 
>>>> Which tool is spitting it out?
>>>
>>> Are you looking for any special tool?
>> I was wondering how you identified these particular
>> issues as I wanted to know the logic behind the test.
> 
> Do you get any related ideas from information in a message like
> "Source code review around jump label usage" (from 2015-12-11)?
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/12/11/378
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<566ABCD9.1060404@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> 
> 
>>> Which test do you mean?
>> Whatever you used to find these jump labels
> 
> There is a general possibility that dedicated scripts for the semantic
> patch language can also adjust jump labels as I suggested it for five
> functions in this software.
> 
> 
>> (the patch series description suggested it was a static checker).
> 
> The corresponding five patches are just a result of a source code review
> by the means of a current text editor wit extra support for programming.
To my mind there is a divide between the cost of making changes like this
as a result of initial review and that of doing it on existing code.

I don't think this one is worth while for existing code.
> 
> How do you think about to improve the capabilities of tools for advanced
> static source code analysis any further?
> 
> Regards,
> Markus
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>