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 <>
To:     Julia Lawall <>,
        Wen Yang <>
Cc:     Gilles Muller <>,
        Nicolas Palix <>,
        Michal Marek <>,
        Masahiro Yamada <>,
        Wen Yang <>,
        Cheng Shengyu <>,,
        LKML <>,
        Coccinelle <>
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


+ ... when != id = e

Which SmPL specification will achieve the desired software behaviour?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists