[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e3a37d93-0353-ebed-948a-991add184616@web.de>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 09:46:00 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
cocci@...teme.lip6.fr, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] string: Add stracpy and stracpy_pad mechanisms
> New version. I check for non-use of the return value of strlcpy and
> address some issues that affected the matching of the case where the first
> argument involves a pointer dereference.
I suggest to take another look at corresponding implementation details
of the shown SmPL script.
> \(strscpy\|strlcpy\)(e1.f, e2, i2)@p
Can the data access operator “->” (arrow) matter also here?
> @@
> identifier r.i1,r.i2;
> type T;
> @@
> struct i1 { ... T i1[i2]; ... }
Will an additional SmPL rule name be helpful for this part?
> @@
> (
> -x = strlcpy
> +stracpy
> (e1.f, e2
> - , i2
> )@p;
> ... when != x
>
> |
I wonder about the deletion of the assignment target.
Should the setting of such a variable be usually preserved?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists