linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: api: add device_attr

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]

Date:   Mon, 15 Jun 2020 16:04:39 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Denis Efremov <efremov@...ux.com>,
        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>
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: api: add device_attr_show script

> +// Confidence: High

Would you like to add any suggestion for a possible patch message?

…
> +virtual report
> +virtual org
> +virtual context
> +virtual patch

+virtual report, org, context, patch

Is such a SmPL code variant more succinct?

…
> +ssize_t show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> +{
> +	<...
> +*	return snprintf@p(...);
> +	...>
> +}

I suggest to reconsider the selection of the SmPL nest construct.
https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/e06b9156dfa02a28cf3cbf0913a10513f3d163ab/docs/manual/cocci_syntax.tex#L783

Can the construct “<+... … ...+>” become relevant here?

Would you like to consider any further software design consequences
around the safe application of the asterisk functionality in rules
for the semantic patch language?

Regards,
Markus