linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] 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]

Message-ID: <0b48a5c5-0814-6414-39ba-beb1b8b5253a@metux.net>
Date:   Mon, 1 Jul 2019 12:48:30 +0200
From:   "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
        Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>
Cc:     Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ding Xiang <dingxiang@...s.chinamobile.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Coccinelle: Add a SmPL script for the reconsideration
 of redundant dev_err() calls

On 01.07.19 10:10, Markus Elfring wrote:

Hi folks,

> +@...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 devm_ioremap_resource() function contains appropriate error reporting.")
> +
> +@...ipt:python reporting depends on report@
> +p << or.p;
> +@@
> +coccilib.report.print_report(p[0],
> +                             "WARNING: An error message is probably not needed here because the devm_ioremap_resource() function contains appropriate error reporting.")
> --

By the way: do we have any mechanism for explicitly suppressing
individual warnings (some kind of annotation), when the maintainer is
sure that some particular case is a false-positive ?
(I'm thinking of something similar to certain #praga directives for
explicitly ignoring invididual warnings in specific lines of code)

I believe such a feature, so we don't get spammed with the same false
positives again and again.


--mtx

-- 
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@...ux.net -- +49-151-27565287