linux-kernel - Re: [linux-safety] [PATCH] usb: host: ehci-sched: add comment about find

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]

Date:   Tue, 13 Oct 2020 07:37:34 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
cc:     Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-safety@...ts.elisa.tech,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-safety] [PATCH] usb: host: ehci-sched: add comment about
 find_tt() not returning error



On Tue, 13 Oct 2020, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 08:25:30PM +0200, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 05:10:21PM +0200, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> > > > And for the static analysis finding, we need to find a way to ignore this 
> > > > finding without simply ignoring all findings or new findings that just 
> > > > look very similar to the original finding, but which are valid.
> > > 
> > > Then I suggest you fix the tool that "flagged" this, surely this is not
> > > the only thing it detected with a test like this, right?
> > > 
> > > What tool reported this?
> > >
> > 
> > Sudip and I are following on clang analyzer findings.
> > 
> > On linux-next, there is new build target 'make clang-analyzer' that 
> > outputs a bunch of warnings, just as you would expect from such static 
> > analysis tools.
> 
> Why not fix the things that it finds that are actually issues?  If there
> are no actual issues found, then perhaps you should use a better tool?  :)
>

Completely agree. That is why I was against adding comments here and 
elsewhere just to have the "good feeling of doing something" after the 
tool reported a warning and we spend some time understanding the code to 
conclude that we now understand the code better than the tool.

If you know a better tool, we will use it :) unfortunately, there is no 
easy way of finding out that a tool just reports false positives and not a 
single true positive among 1000 reports...


Lukas