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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 4 Jul 2019 07:40:41 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <>
To:     Wen Yang <>,
Cc:     Yi Wang <>,
        Julia Lawall <>,
        Gilles Muller <>,
        Nicolas Palix <>,
        Michal Marek <>,
        Masahiro Yamada <>,
Subject: Re: [v2] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing of_node_put

> We will also provide an example written in Python later.

Will the code move from the commit description into a file
for your next patch version?

> We first use this script to find out all the function names to be processed,

I am still curious on how the output format selection will become clearer
for the potentially desired automatic data conversion.

> and then copy these function names into r1.

Would this action be performed by another software build script?

>>> +@...tialize:python@
>>> +@@
>>> +
>>> +seen = set()
>>> +
>>> +def add_if_not_present (p1, p2):
>> It seems that you would like to use iteration functionality.

I am waiting on another constructive answer for this implementation detail.

>>> +x = @p1\(of_find_all_nodes\|
>> I would find this SmPL disjunction easier to read without the usage
>> of extra backslashes.
>> +x =
>> +(of_…
>> +|of_…
>> +)@p1(...);
>> Which sort criteria were applied for the generation of the shown
>> function name list?
> As julia pointed out, your current writing is not compiled.

* It can be needed for a while to specify the mentioned position variable
  at an other place.

* Would you like to adjust the SmPL coding style here?

* Will the application of sort criteria be clarified for such identifier lists?

>>> +if (x == NULL || ...) S
>>> +... when != e = (T)x
>>> +    when != true x == NULL
> Our previous version used the "when any" clause, so we need
> "when != true x == NULL".

I suggest to reconsider further aspects for such constraints.

> We can delete this code exclusion specification  for this version.

I would find another assignment exclusion more appropriate at this place.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists