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

Date:   Mon, 9 Sep 2019 12:40:46 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Allison Randal <allison@...utok.net>,
        Enrico Weigelt <lkml@...ux.net>,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Wen Yang <wen.yang99@....com.cn>,
        Yi Wang <wang.yi59@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: Coccinelle: pci_free_consistent: Checking when constraints

>> I just try again to clarify if the specification of a single function call
>> exclusion can (and should) be sufficient also at this place.
>
> It's not sufficient.
>
> I explained why it's not sufficient.

Thanks for another bit of information.


> If you had made your change and tested it, it's at least highly probable
> that you would understand why it is not sufficient as well.
>
> You first reflex when you have a question should be to try what you are
> wondering about, not to head for the mailing list.

I got the impression that a few of our previous clarification attempts
pointed design possibilities out into other directions.

Examples:
* Coccinelle: semantic patch for missing of_node_put
  Response by Wen Yang
  17 May 2019 14:32:57 +0800 (CST)
  https://lore.kernel.org/r/201905171432571474636@zte.com.cn/

  https://lore.kernel.org/r/141163ed-a78b-6d89-e6cd-3442adda7073@web.de/
  https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2019-May/005809.html
  https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/9/99

* [v5] Coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
  Discussion contribution by Markus Elfring
  https://lore.kernel.org/r/b2f195e8-c3a3-f876-a075-317bb33496c6@web.de/
  https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2019-February/005578.html
  https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/15/412


> Please stop spreading misinformation.

I find the provided software documentation still incomplete.
Thus I hope also that the situation can be improved by additional communication.

See also:
  [v5] Coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
  Response by Julia Lawall
  16 Feb 2019 10:36:45 +0100 (CET)
  alpine.DEB.2.21.1902161036120.3212@...rien

  https://lore.kernel.org/r/6c114d10-0d17-6f43-4c33-0f57c230306f@web.de/
  https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2019-February/005594.html
  https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/16/38


How will the software development attention evolve further around the safe handling
of code exclusion specifications together with the semantic patch language?

Regards,
Markus