linux-kernel - Re: 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:   Thu, 1 Feb 2018 11:17:33 +0100
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr
Cc:     Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
        Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@...il.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Delete function "kmem_cache_alloc"
 from SmPL rules

>> 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.
>>
>> Thus remove it from the first two SmPL rules and omit the rule "r4".
> 
> Nack.

I find such a rejection surprising once more.

> It should be supported by the size determined in another way.

I am curious on how our different views could be clarified further
for this special software situation.

* Do we agree that a proper size determination is essential for every
  condition in the discussed SmPL rules together with forwarding
  this information?

* How can a name be ever relevant (within the published SmPL approach)
  for a function when it was designed in the way that it should generally
  work without a size parameter?

Regards,
Markus