linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] coccinelle: semantic code search 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: <c096c774-bb52-de01-7608-286b4d416cda@web.de>
Date:   Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:10:12 +0100
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Wen Yang <wen.yang99@....com.cn>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:     Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Yi Wang <wang.yi59@....com.cn>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Wen Yang <yellowriver2010@...mail.com>,
        Cheng Shengyu <cheng.shengyu@....com.cn>,
        cocci@...teme.lip6.fr, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing
 put_device()

> In a function, for a local variable returned by calling
> of_find_device_by_node(),

I suggest to reconsider this information once more.

1. Will an other wording be more appropriate for the storage of
   a function return value?

2. Can the restriction “local” be omitted?

3. Will any macros be involved eventually?

> c, for the rest of the situation, the current function should release the
>    reference by calling put_device,

Can it happen that on other function will perform the desired reference release?

>                                     this code search will report the
>    corresponding error message.

Rewording?
A code search can report an error with a specific confidence.

> v5->v4:

Such version information would be sufficient also without arrows, wouldn't it?

> - add a SPDX identifierfix

Would you like to fix a typo at the end?

> +@...ipt:python depends on report@
> +p1 << search.p1;
> +p2 << search.p2;
> +@@
> +
> +coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0], "ERROR: missing put_device; "
> +			      + "call of_find_device_by_node on line "
> +			      + p1[0].line
> +			      + ", but without a corresponding object release "
> +			      + "within this function.")

I find your interpretation of my reminder for the preferred avoidance
of split string literals interesting somehow.

Can the following source code variant be more appropriate?

+coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0],
+			      "WARNING: missing put_device - of_find_device_by_node() call on line "
+			      + p1[0].line
+			      + ", but without a corresponding object release within this function.")

Will any more advanced error diagnostics be eventually developed?

Regards,
Markus