linux-kernel - Re: [v4 3/3] coccinelle: Add script to check for platform_get

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: <3baa3e3c-c122-e868-55a0-597e279496ac@web.de>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jul 2019 20:38:48 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
        Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [v4 3/3] coccinelle: Add script to check for platform_get_irq()
 excessive prints

>>> +if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
>>
>> Is it appropriate to treat this error code check as optional
>> by the shown transformation approach?
>> Can this case distinction be omitted?
>
> I don't know what you mean here.

I suggest to take another look at the importance and relevance
of this specific source code search detail (including SmPL disjunctions).


> Do you want me to drop this part so that EPROBE_DEFER checks don't get removed?

No, not at the moment. - But I am still looking for further clarification
of the desired software design.
So I am curious how a corresponding agreement will evolve.

Regards,
Markus