linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 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]

Date:   Wed, 24 Jul 2019 11:30:16 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>
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>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] coccinelle: Add script to check for
 platform_get_irq() excessive prints

I would prefer to concentrate the usage of SmPL disjunctions on changing
implementation details so that the specification of duplicate code
can be avoided.


> +(
> +platform_get_irq(E, ...)
> +|
> +platform_get_irq_byname(E, ...)
> +);

Function names:

+(platform_get_irq
+|platform_get_irq_byname
+)(E, ...);


> +if ( \( ret < 0 \| ret <= 0 \) )

Comparison operators:

+if (ret \( < \| <= \) 0)


> +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?

Regards,
Markus