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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:32:24 +0100 (CET) From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr> To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de> cc: Wen Yang <wen.yang99@....com.cn>, 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: [v5] Coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device() On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, Markus Elfring wrote: > >> We will modify the the if in the when code like this: > >> > >> @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ if (id == NULL || ...) { ... return ...; } > >> ... when != put_device(&id->dev) > … > >> - when != if (id) { ... put_device(&id->dev) ... } > >> + when != if (...) { ... put_device(&id->dev) ... } > > > > This looks ok. > > I have got another different software development opinion also for > such SmPL code in the adjusted line. > I find this specific source code search variant irrelevant > because the shown reference release function should be found > by the first SmPL when specification already. > Would you like to determine generally if the desired function call > is present at all? > > Thus I do not see a need (or requirement) for a duplicate search attempt. Why don't you actually try it and see what the difference is rather than repeatedly giving false information? julia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists