linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] coccinelle: api: extend memdup_user transformation with GFP

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b271c2f0-3852-e557-b671-a6b44ad10c19@web.de>
Date:   Tue, 21 Jul 2020 10:24:30 +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@...ia.fr>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] coccinelle: api: extend memdup_user transformation
 with GFP_USER

> Match GFP_USER and optional __GFP_NOWARN allocations with
> memdup_user.cocci rule.

I suggest to clarify software design consequences according to such information
a bit more.

I find it helpful if you would have included also my email address directly
in the message field “To” or “Cc”.
Are there further reasons to consider for the extension of the recipient lists?

> +-  to = \(kmalloc\|kzalloc\)
> +-		(size,\(GFP_KERNEL\|GFP_USER\|
> +-		      \(GFP_KERNEL\|GFP_USER\)|__GFP_NOWARN\));

* Would you ever dare to specify such a source code search pattern
  on a single line?

* I find the specification of SmPL disjunctions questionable
  for the determination of relevant flags.
  Could previous patch review trigger concerns and further considerations
  for the proper handling of optional source code parts?

> +*  to = \(kmalloc@p\|kzalloc@p\)
> +		(size,\(GFP_KERNEL\|GFP_USER\|
> +		      \(GFP_KERNEL\|GFP_USER\)|__GFP_NOWARN\));

Would you like to use the SmPL asterisk really only for a single line?

How will the chances evolve to continue the clarification also for
the open issue “Safer source code analysis by "memdup_user.cocci"”?
https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/78

Regards,
Markus