linux-kernel - Re: [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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1902160931540.3212@hadrien>
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