[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f182b411-d378-56dd-1ab5-0e8f039d493e@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 18:53:13 +0100
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@...il.com>
Cc: cocci@...teme.lip6.fr, 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
>> Will the rule set be more consistent then?
>
> If E1 is not bound by the kem_cache_alloc rule, then it will match anything.
How much was such a software behaviour intended by the discussed SmPL script?
> The user can check if it is appropriate.
How does such an information fit to expectations for safe source code analysis?
> Another option would be to use the type of the variable storing the result
> of the call to compute the expected size.
How would this suggestion help here?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists