linux-kernel - Re: [v2] Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Delete function “kmem_cache

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: <243e83a2-ae0c-2dd2-7f8f-83ac0978cc0e@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Wed, 31 Jan 2018 18:28:13 +0100
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     cocci@...teme.lip6.fr,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@...il.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
        "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>
Subject: Re: [v2] Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Delete function “kmem_cache_alloc” from SmPL rules

> I removed the blank line at EOF,
> then applied to linux-kbuild/misc.

I have taken another look at this script for the semantic patch language.
I imagined that I could refactor the shown SmPL disjunctions a bit.
But I noticed then that these SmPL rules contain a development mistake.

The deletion for a call of the function “memset” depends on the specification
that a size determination is passed by the expression “E1”.
The function “kmem_cache_alloc” was specified despite of the technical detail
that this function does not get a parameter passed which would correspond
to such a size information.
https://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v4.15/source/tools/testing/radix-tree/linux/slab.h#L14
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/tools/testing/radix-tree/linux/slab.h?id=537659c08a7da298aa748854f65f2aa1f31b1378#n14

Thus I suggest to remove it from the first two SmPL rules and omit the rule “r4”.
Will the rule set be more consistent then?

Regards,
Markus