linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] coccinelle: check for integer overflow in binary search

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a9fabfbe-d75e-ef40-c5e6-946c52344308@web.de>
Date:   Thu, 5 Sep 2019 16:23:35 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Denis Efremov <efremov@...ux.com>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        cocci@...teme.lip6.fr
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] coccinelle: check for integer overflow in binary
 search

> +@@
> +(
> + while (\(…\)) {
…
> + }

It seems that compound statements are mainly checked for
control flow statements by this source code search approach
so far.
Would you like to handle also single statements (without the
curly brackets)?
(Will additional SmPL disjunctions be needed then?)

> +statement S;
…
> +|
> + for (...; \(…\);
> +      m = \(…\)) S

* Can the metavariable “S” look nicer on a separate line?

* Should assignments be taken into account for more variables?

> +|
> + for (...; \(…\); ...) {
> + }
> +)

I find the shown case distinction incomplete.
Will loop initialisations trigger further SmPL development challenges?

Regards,
Markus