[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802081457350.13345@hadrien>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 14:58:56 +0100 (CET)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
cc: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts/coccinelle/misc/shift.cocci: detect < or > that
should be a shift
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 01:53:54PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > This checks for a comparison using < or > between two constants,
> > considering both explicit constants (1, 2, etc) and macros defined
> > with #define. False positives are possible in the latter case, when
> > a macro may have multiple possible definitions and it is indeed
> > necessary to check the value. There are currently two such false
> > positives, in drivers/net/ethernet/chelsio/cxgb3/sge.c:
> >
> > q->fl[0].use_pages = FL0_PG_CHUNK_SIZE > 0;
> > q->fl[1].use_pages = FL1_PG_CHUNK_SIZE > 0;
> >
>
> We could eliminate both these false postives by ignoring >> vs >. Did
> searching for > actually find any bugs? I think you were right that
> right shifting a constant is way less common than left shifting and I
> have some smatch scripts where I ignore right shifting bugs.
>
> On the other hand, two false positives are not a big deal.
I found no bugs with > at the moment. I figured that the person could
have just as easily written 0 < FL0_PG_CHUNK_SIZE, so it was not worth
making a special case. But if anyone wants me to drop the case id > cst,
then I can do that.
thanks,
julia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists