linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] coccinelle: semantic patch for missing put

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: <63ed130e-7764-3fc6-88b5-5965bf12c790@web.de>
Date:   Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:40:53 +0100
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Wen Yang <wen.yang99@....com.cn>
Cc:     Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
        Wen Yang <yellowriver2010@...mail.com>,
        Xue Zhihong <xue.zhihong@....com.cn>,
        Yi Wang <wang.yi59@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] coccinelle: semantic patch for missing put_device()

> Reviewed-by: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>

I have got doubts that my code review comments qualify already
for this tag.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=1f947a7a011fcceb14cb912f5481a53b18f1879a#n565

> Cc: cocci@...teme.lip6.fr

I assume that Masahiro Yamada will also need to get explicitly informed
for a possible patch integration.

> v3->v2:
> - reduction of a bit of redundant C code within SmPL search specifications.
> - consider the message construction without using the extra Python variable “msg”

I find it nice that you would like to take this information into account.

> +    when != e4 = (T1)platform_get_drvdata(id)
> +(
> +

Should a blank line be omitted at such a source code place?

> +  return
> +(    id
> +|    (T2)dev_get_drvdata(&id->dev)
> +|    (T3)platform_get_drvdata(id)
> +);

It seems that you would like to express a different coding style.
Would anybody like to reconsider the position once more for semicolons
in nested disjunctions for such a SmPL search specification?

> +coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0], "ERROR: missing put_device; of_find_device_by_node on line " + p1[0].line + " and return without releasing.")

Your willingness for such a rearrangement is interesting.
How do you think about to move the long message parameter to a subsequent line?

Regards,
Markus