linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] coccinelle: misc: add array_size_dup script to detect missed overflow checks

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: <759d33d2-25a2-f55f-7e3a-7481ab5dd0fc@linux.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Jun 2020 15:24:39 +0300
From:   Denis Efremov <efremov@...ux.com>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>,
        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:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] coccinelle: misc: add array_size_dup script to detect
 missed overflow checks

Hi,

On 6/18/20 2:34 PM, Markus Elfring wrote:
> Why did you repeat a typo from the previous patch subject?

Where is the typo? I can't handle your suggestions because your mails constantly
break the threads. I just can't find them after due to missed/wrong In-Reply-To
headers. Again, this mail doesn't contain In-Reply-To header and highly likely I
will miss it when I will prepare next version of the patch.


>> +expression subE1 <= as.E1;
>> +expression subE2 <= as.E2;
>> +expression as.E1, as.E2, E3;
> 
> How do you think about to use the following SmPL code variant?
> 
> expression subE1 <= as.E1, subE2 <= as.E2, as.E1, as.E2, E3;

It's less readable and harder to review.

> 
>> +      when != \(&E1\|&E2\|&subE1\|&subE2\)
> 
> I suggest to move the ampersand before the disjunction in such
> SmPL code exclusion specifications.
> 
> +      when != & \(E1 \| E2 \| subE1 \| subE2\)

Ok, I will fix this if there will be next version.

> 
> 
>> +coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0],
>> +f"WARNING: array_size is already used (line {p1[0].line}) to compute \
>> +the same size")
> 
> I would prefer an other code formatting at such places.
> 
> +coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0],
> +                             f"WARNING: array_size is already used (line {p1[0].line}) to compute the same size.")
> 

No. It's pointless to break the line to save 5 chars this way.

I can use instead:

coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0], f"WARNING: array_size is already used (line {p1[0].line}) to compute the same size")

or

msg = f"WARNING: array_size is already used (line {p1[0].line}) to compute the same size"
coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0], msg)

or

coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0],
f"WARNING: array_size is already used (line {p1[0].line}) to compute the same size")

And I prefer the last one if Julia will allow me to use more than 80 chars in print string.

Thanks,
Denis