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: <1200eae3-a6b0-cd6a-02b1-4f3034bb0fb5@web.de>
Date:   Thu, 18 Jun 2020 17:01:51 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Denis Efremov <efremov@...ux.com>,
        Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>
Cc:     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>,
        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

> Where is the typo?

I tried to point a possible replacement out for the word “overlow” by “overflow”.

> I can't handle your suggestions

I hope that you got chances to take also my patch review comments into account.

> because your mails constantly break the threads. I just can't find them
> after due to missed/wrong In-Reply-To headers.

There are some factors involved for this undesirable effect.

* My software selection contains open issues in the handling of mail links
  according to the communication interface “public inbox”.

* Mailing list settings hinder more direct participation (for me).

* If you would specify more mail addresses for reviewers (like me) explicitly
  as recipients, the impression can hopefully become more positive again.

>>> +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.

Can a different code formatting help then?

expression subE1 <= as.E1, subE2 <= as.E2,
           as.E1, as.E2, E3;

>> 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.

Other software extensions which you proposed recently were similarly affected
at a few places.

>> 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.

Did we get used to function parameter alignment?
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst?id=1b5044021070efa3259f3e9548dc35d1eb6aa844#n93

I suggest to reconsider potential concerns for line length limitations
according to such message strings.

Regards,
Markus