[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <184a9193-dd65-6413-9e36-f11a8a603ed7@web.de>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 14:54:32 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Wen Yang <wen.yang99@....com.cn>, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Xue Zhihong <xue.zhihong@....com.cn>,
Yi Wang <wang.yi59@....com.cn>,
Cheng Shengyu <cheng.shengyu@....com.cn>,
Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>,
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 <yellowriver2010@...mail.com>
Subject: Re: [v3] Coccinelle: semantic code search for “use after …”
> Finally, this patch finds use-after-free issues for a node.
> (implemented by the r_use_after_put rule)
I suggest to take another look also at information from a clarification attempt
on a topic like “Checking statement order for patch generation with SmPL support”.
https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2017-September/004483.html
https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/alpine.DEB.2.20.1709071519240.3168@hadrien/
Under which circumstances will it become safer to develop SmPL script variants
for such source code search patterns?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists