linux-kernel - 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9666134d-0ff6-81eb-b088-f0086a0e61b1@web.de>
Date:   Sun, 8 Sep 2019 10:10:13 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>,
        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>,
        Petr Strnad <strnape1@....cvut.cz>,
        Wen Yang <wen.yang99@....com.cn>
Cc:     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: Coccinelle: pci_free_consistent: Checking when constraints

Hello,

I have taken another look at a known script for the semantic patch language.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/scripts/coccinelle/free/pci_free_consistent.cocci?id=950b07c14e8c59444e2359f15fd70ed5112e11a0#n2

The following SmPL code is used there so far.

…
... when != pci_free_consistent(x,y,id,z)
    when != if (id) { ... pci_free_consistent(x,y,id,z) ... }
    when != if (y) { ... pci_free_consistent(x,y,id,z) ... }
…

It is specified that a specific function call should be excluded
in a source code search.
I do not see a need to repeat the specification twice that such a call
could eventually happen also within a branch of another if statement.
How do you think about to omit possibly redundant SmPL code at this place?

Regards,
Markus