linux-kernel - Re: Coccinelle: Add a SmPL script for the reconsideration of redundant dev

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]

Date:   Thu, 20 Jun 2019 21:12:20 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
cc:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
        Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ding Xiang <dingxiang@...s.chinamobile.com>
Subject: Re: Coccinelle: Add a SmPL script for the reconsideration of redundant
 dev_err() calls



On Thu, 20 Jun 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:

> >> +@...play depends on context@
> >> +expression e;
> >> +@@
> >> + e = devm_ioremap_resource(...);
> >> + if (IS_ERR(e))
> >> + {
> >> +*   dev_err(...);
> >> +    return (...);
> >> + }
> >
> > Why do you assume that there is exactly one dev_err and one return after
> > the test?
>
> I propose to start with the addition of a simple source code search pattern.
> Would you prefer to clarify a more advanced approach?

I think that something like

if (IS_ERR(e))
{
<+...
*dev_err(...)
...+>
}

would be more appropriate.  Whether there is a return or not doesn't
really matter.

>
>
> >> +@...ipt:python to_do depends on org@
> >> +p << or.p;
> >> +@@
> >> +coccilib.org.print_todo(p[0],
> >> +                        "WARNING: An error message is probably not needed here because the previously called function contains appropriate error reporting.")
> >
> > "the previously called function" would be better as "devm_ioremap_resource".
>
> Would you like to get the relevant function name dynamically determined?

I have no idea what you consider "the relevant function name" to be.  If
it is always devm_ioremap_resource then it would seem that it does not
need to be dynamically determined.

julia