linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iio: imu: adis16550: rework clock range test

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: <3778ad13-3b62-4f68-946d-b861b0df4272@baylibre.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 10:07:17 -0500
From: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
 Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
 Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Nuno Sá
 <nuno.sa@...log.com>, Robert Budai <robert.budai@...log.com>,
 Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: imu: adis16550: rework clock range test

On 7/2/25 9:59 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 05:53:57PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 09:27:45AM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
>>> Rework the clock rate range test to test if sync_mode_data != NULL
>>> instead of testing if the for loop index variable. This makes it easier
>>> for static analyzers to see that we aren't using an uninitialized
>>> sync_mode_data [1].
>>
>> But at the same time it makes it not to be the usual pattern.,,
> 
> Reading the static analyser output I think the first hunk is only what we need,
> but this is still false positive and it's problem of that static
> analyser. Have you filed a bug there? (My point is that modifying the code for
> the advantage of false positives of some static analyser is wrong road to go
> in my opinion.)
> 

I agree that we shouldn't fix this _only_ to make the static analyzer
happy. But I had to think quite a bit harder to see that the existing
code was correct compared to what I have proposed here.

But if this is a common pattern that I just haven't learned to identify
at a glance yet and everybody else can easily see that the existing code
is correct, then perhaps it isn't worth the change.