linux-kernel - Re: [Cocci] [RFC PATCH] scripts: coccicheck: Improve error feedback when coccicheck fails

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]

Date:   Mon, 14 Sep 2020 09:26:41 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
cc:     Sumera Priyadarsini <sylphrenadin@...il.com>,
        Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Cocci] [RFC PATCH] scripts: coccicheck: Improve error feedback
 when coccicheck fails



On Mon, 14 Sep 2020, Markus Elfring wrote:

> >>>> How do you think about to use the following check variant?
> >>>>
> >>>> +	if [ "${DEBUG_FILE}" != '/dev/null' -a "${DEBUG_FILE}" != '' ]; then
> …
> > I have no idea.  Why can't they be nclosed by double quotes as well?
>
> Both script variants can work.
> Such coding style variations can trigger different run time characteristics
> (besides expressing specific intentions), can't they?

Again, I have no idea.  But the runtime cost of these tests must be
microscopic as compared to the overall cost of make coccicheck.

julia