linux-kernel - Re: [cocci] [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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f24b6e34-a9ae-4bfa-97f3-95503a732a88@web.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 09:30:17 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>, cocci@...ia.fr
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [cocci] [RFC] Choosing “semantics” better for SmPL script parts?

> The default is exists for use with * and forall with transformation, with
> the reasoning for the latter being that when transformation occurs the
> trasformed code should be consistent.

Will corresponding development concerns be reconsidered in more detail?

Would you understand the source code search parameter “forall” in the way
that it expresses a stronger data processing requirement (than the setting
alternative “exists”)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantification

Is it known if such a quantification difference would influence software
run time characteristics in significant ways?

Regards,
Markus