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]

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