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  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]
Date:   Sun, 17 Feb 2019 13:20:51 +0100
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Wen Yang <yellowriver2010@...mail.com>
Cc:     Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Wen Yang <wen.yang99@....com.cn>,
        Cheng Shengyu <cheng.shengyu@....com.cn>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>
Subject: Re: [v6] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()

>> If you would insist on the specification of such an assignment exclusion
>> for a SmPL ellipsis:
>> Can we agree on a correct order?
>
> I don't get your point.

I propose to take another closer look at a bit of SmPL code.


> There is no correct order.

I have got an other software development view here.


> Each order expresses something different.

I agree to this information.


> The order that is currently in the semantic patch is the one
> that is more likely in practice.

Please check once more.

…
+@...rch exists@
+local idexpression id;
+expression x,e,e1;
+position p1,p2;
…
+@@
+
+id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x)
+... when != e = id
…

Or:

…
+ ... when != id = e
…


Which SmPL specification will achieve the desired software behaviour?

Regards,
Markus

Powered by blists - more mailing lists