linux-kernel - Re: [Cocci] Coccinelle rule for CVE-2019-18683

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

Message-ID: <f6175913-560e-d554-cc2d-080b7f6a264b@web.de>
Date:   Thu, 9 Apr 2020 10:41:02 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
        Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>
Subject: Re: [Cocci] Coccinelle rule for CVE-2019-18683

> Do you have any idea how to improve it?

I see further software development possibilities of varying relevance
also for this script of the semantic patch language.

* The SmPL variables “lock_p”, “unlock_p” and “stop_p” could be declared
  in a more succinct way just by listing them in the same statement.

* The source code search pattern can be too generic.
  How do you think about to consider additional constraints
  for safer data control flow analysis?

* Other operation modes might become helpful.

Regards,
Markus