linux-kernel - Re: [v5] coccinelle: semantic code search for missingput

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:41:45 +0100 (CET)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:     wen.yang99@....com.cn
cc:     Markus.Elfring@....de, Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
        nicolas.palix@...g.fr, michal.lkml@...kovi.net,
        wang.yi59@....com.cn, yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com,
        yellowriver2010@...mail.com, cheng.shengyu@....com.cn,
        cocci@...teme.lip6.fr, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v5] coccinelle: semantic code search for missingput_device()

Actually, upon reflection, I don't like the if (...) solution.  if (id !=
NULL) would be better.  This will also check for if (id).  If having such
an explicit test results in false positives, the semantic patch can be
revised.  But it is better than if (...), which allow anything at all, and
could miss cases where the free should happen, but does not.

julia