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  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]
Date:   Fri, 14 Aug 2020 21:52:13 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Julia Lawall <>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <>
cc:     kernel test robot <>,,, Theodore Ts'o <>,
        Jan Kara <>, Nicolas Palix <>
Subject: Re: fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c:2430:2-8: preceding lock on line 2413

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> Julia,
> On Fri, Aug 14 2020 at 21:00, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> That's clearly a false positive. Is there anything what can be done to
> >> help that cocci script here?
> >
> > I have a better version that needs to get pushed.
> >
> > But normally these pass through me.  Did you get it directly from kbuild?
> Yes, because I touched the affected lines last :)

Actually, that's not the point.  Normally, I get all the reports on this
case, and then I forward them if they look ok.  If I forwarded something
incorrect, then sorry about that.  If the policy has changed for this rule
to be sending the reports out directlty to the recipients, then I think it
should be changed back.  There are a lot of real bugs with lock usage, but
there are alot of false positives too.  Specifically, the rule looks for
the case with identical if tests, but only when the branches are identical

Kbuild people, can this be adjusted?  Or have I misunderstood the


Powered by blists - more mailing lists