linux-kernel - [RFC] Choosing “semantics” better for SmPL script parts?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <574a6fa0-00a0-43c2-8e66-cc6443f5cfd4@web.de>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2025 14:40:35 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: cocci@...ia.fr
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [RFC] Choosing “semantics” better for SmPL script parts?

Hello,

A bit of information is provided about special “semantics” (also in the manual
for the semantic patch language).
https://gitlab.inria.fr/coccinelle/coccinelle/-/blob/face14907c0791b93397d5788d2a94c7c6a4b886/docs/manual/cocci_syntax.tex#L1007-1014

Usage possibilities are indicated for the key words “exists” and “forall”.

* Would any more software users like to discuss and clarify safer applications
  of these system configuration parameters?

* Would you be looking for better “connections” according to computation tree
  logic (or linear temporal logic) variations?

Regards,
Markus