linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: api: add kzfree script

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

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2006041927020.2577@hadrien>
Date:   Thu, 4 Jun 2020 19:28:25 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
To:     Denis Efremov <efremov@...ux.com>
cc:     cocci@...teme.lip6.fr, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: api: add kzfree script

> After all it seems reasonable to me to add forall and memset_explicit rather
> than handle all these false positives. Something like this for v2?
>
> @r depends on !patch && !(file in "lib/test_kasan.c") && !(file in "mm/slab_common.c") forall@
> expression *E;
> position p;
> @@
>
> * \(memset\|memset_explicit\)(E, 0, ...);
>   ... when != E
> * kfree(E)@p;
>
> Do I need to add "when strict" with forall or it's already enabled in this case?
> Do I need to enable forall for pathing "-/+"?

forall seems entirely reasonable.  You don't need it in the -/+ case.  I
would put when strict in both cases.

julia