linux-kernel - Re: Coccinelle: pci_free_consistent: Checking when constraints

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: <63e433b4-06cf-cecc-46e0-9f31226f71d0@web.de>
Date:   Sun, 8 Sep 2019 14:48:47 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>
Cc:     Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
        Petr Strnad <strnape1@....cvut.cz>,
        Wen Yang <wen.yang99@....com.cn>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Allison Randal <allison@...utok.net>,
        Enrico Weigelt <lkml@...ux.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Yi Wang <wang.yi59@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: Coccinelle: pci_free_consistent: Checking when constraints

> The when exists below these lines has an impact.

This parameter should result in a desirable effect.


> I believe that the rule is ok as is.

I wonder about the relevance of the shown double if statement exclusion.


> A single path may have no call to pci_free_consistent,

We come along different views around the provided software functionality
once more.


> but if it has that call under one of the mentioned ifs,
> then the path is still ok,

I find that this information can need further clarification.


> and not something that an error should be reported about.

I do not expect an error message from the SmPL script execution here.

I just try again to clarify if the specification of a single function call
exclusion can (and should) be sufficient also at this place.

Regards,
Markus