linux-kernel - Re: [cocci] [PATCH net-next 1/2] scripts/coccinelle: Find PTR

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: <7d46a1d1-f205-4751-9f7d-6a219be04801@nvidia.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 16:24:30 +0300
From: Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>,
 cocci@...ia.fr, Alexei Lazar <alazar@...dia.com>,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
 Mark Bloch <mbloch@...dia.com>, Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
 Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
 Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [cocci] [PATCH net-next 1/2] scripts/coccinelle: Find PTR_ERR()
 to %pe candidates

On 28/09/2025 15:00, Markus Elfring wrote:
>>>> +virtual context
>>>> +virtual org
>>>> +virtual report
>>>
>>> The restriction on the support for three operation modes will need further development considerations.
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean?
> 
> The development status might be unclear for the handling of a varying number of operation modes
> by coccicheck rules, isn't it?

I'm sorry, I still don't understand what you mean (the problem is likely
on my side).
Do you want me to change anything?

> 
> 
>> I did find "format list" in the documentation, but spatch fails when I
>> try to use it.
> 
> Which SmPL code variations did you try out?

Ended up with Julia's suggestion.

> 
> 
>>> Would it matter to restrict expressions to pointer expressions?
>>
>> I tried changing 'expression ptr;' -> 'expression *ptr;', but then it
>> didn't find anything. Am I doing it wrong?
> 
> Further software improvements can be reconsidered accordingly.
> 
> 
>>>> +@...ipt:python depends on r && org@
>>>
>>> I guess that such an SmPL dependency specification can be simplified a bit.
>>
>> You mean drop the depends on r?
> 
> You may omit “r &&” (because the rule is referenced by an SmPL variable declaration),
> can't you?

Yes, thanks.

> 
> 
>>>> +p << r.p;
>>>> +@@
>>>> +coccilib.org.print_todo(p[0], "WARNING: Consider using %pe to print PTR_ERR()")
>>>
>>> I suggest to reconsider the implementation detail once more
>>> if the SmPL asterisk functionality fits really to the operation modes “org” and “report”.
>>>
>>> The operation mode “context” can usually work also without an extra position variable,
>>> can't it?
>>
>> Can you please explain?
> 
> Are you aware of data format requirements here?

Apparently not, I'll be glad to learn.