linux-kernel - Re: [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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <eb3e0445-39fa-4f4a-aeed-96eadc94657d@web.de>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 09:30:24 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: cocci@...ia.fr
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Choosing “semantics” better for SmPL script parts?

> A bit of information is provided about special “semantics” (also in the manual
> for the semantic patch language).

The usage of the semantic match functionality influences which default semantics
should be applied for the evaluation of an SmPL rule.
I imagine that the corresponding data processing can become more interesting
when the needed semantics would actually be the opposite setting.

* Do you tend to look for the existence of selected implementation details
  more than that source code variants can occur on all executions paths
  according to evolving control flows?

* Would you expect to use the source code search parameter “exists” more often
  then “forall”?

Regards,
Markus