linux-kernel - Re: [v3] coccinelle: semantic patch to check for inappropriate do

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

Message-ID: <5a9f1ad1-3881-2004-2a7b-d61f1d201cf9@web.de>
Date:   Sat, 11 Jan 2020 08:30:18 +0100
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Wen Yang <wenyang@...ux.alibaba.com>, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Matthias Männich <maennich@...gle.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [v3] coccinelle: semantic patch to check for inappropriate
 do_div() calls

>> * I suggest once more to adjust the dependency specifications for the usage
>>   of these functions by SmPL rules.
>
> Most of the functions here are for all operation modes.

I got an other understanding for this software.

You added the information “also filter out safe consts for context mode”
to the patch change log.


>> * Can the local variable “msg” be omitted?

I would appreciate another fine-tuning also at this place.


>>> +coccilib.org.print_todo(p[0], construct_warnings("div64_ul"))
>>
>> I suggest again to move the prefix “div64_” into the string literal
>> of the function implementation.
>
> “div64_ul” indicates the function name we recommend.

The intention can be fine.


> If we delete the prefix "div64_",

I suggest to use the text at an other place.


> it may reduce readability.

I find an other code variant also readable good enough.


> +*do_div(f, \( l \| ul \| ul64 \| sl64 \) );
>
> We agree with Julia:
> I don't se any point to this.

Can the avoidance of duplicate source code (according to SmPL disjunctions)
trigger positive effects on run time characteristics and software maintenance?

Regards,
Markus