From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: DR Checker and KINT static checkers
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:21:23 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170913102123.nsg7dpolysn6fk5u@mwanda> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170913095202.a6zsi3xeryzhmxrl@mwanda>
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:01:33PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>
> > LWN.net recently had an article about Dr Checker. It's a promising new
> > static analysis tool. The LWN article is for subscribers only until
> > tomorrow, but anyone can read the PDF or install the code. It would be
> > really interesting if someone could run Dr Checker on a mainline kernel
> > tree and post the results.
> > https://lwn.net/Articles/733056/
> > https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurity17/sec17-machiry.pdf
> > https://github.com/ucsb-seclab/dr_checker/
>
> I'm always puzzled by statements like:
>
> Some 5,000 warnings were generated, of which nearly 4,000 were verified as
> correct by the team. Of those, 158 were actual bugs that were reported
> upstream and fixed.
My read was that the 4000 warnings were code bugs that don't affect
runtime, such as inconsistent NULL checking but the pointer isn't
NULL so it doesn't affect runtime? That's a pure guess.
>
> If they took the time to validate 5000 bugs, couldn't they have sent more
> patches, or at least made the results public in some way so that other
> people could fix them? Maybe the others are "duplicated, but correct"...
I think people are worried about posting the results so they don't get
blamed for disclosing a kernel vulnerability. I used to worry about
that but now I assume everything a static checker can find is public
information already.
regards,
dan carpenter
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Cc: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com,
Colin King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: DR Checker and KINT static checkers
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:21:23 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170913102123.nsg7dpolysn6fk5u@mwanda> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709131156450.13908@hadrien>
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:01:33PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>
> > LWN.net recently had an article about Dr Checker. It's a promising new
> > static analysis tool. The LWN article is for subscribers only until
> > tomorrow, but anyone can read the PDF or install the code. It would be
> > really interesting if someone could run Dr Checker on a mainline kernel
> > tree and post the results.
> > https://lwn.net/Articles/733056/
> > https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurity17/sec17-machiry.pdf
> > https://github.com/ucsb-seclab/dr_checker/
>
> I'm always puzzled by statements like:
>
> Some 5,000 warnings were generated, of which nearly 4,000 were verified as
> correct by the team. Of those, 158 were actual bugs that were reported
> upstream and fixed.
My read was that the 4000 warnings were code bugs that don't affect
runtime, such as inconsistent NULL checking but the pointer isn't
NULL so it doesn't affect runtime? That's a pure guess.
>
> If they took the time to validate 5000 bugs, couldn't they have sent more
> patches, or at least made the results public in some way so that other
> people could fix them? Maybe the others are "duplicated, but correct"...
I think people are worried about posting the results so they don't get
blamed for disclosing a kernel vulnerability. I used to worry about
that but now I assume everything a static checker can find is public
information already.
regards,
dan carpenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-13 10:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-13 9:52 DR Checker and KINT static checkers Dan Carpenter
2017-09-13 9:52 ` Dan Carpenter
2017-09-13 10:01 ` Julia Lawall
2017-09-13 10:01 ` Julia Lawall
2017-09-13 10:02 ` Colin Ian King
2017-09-13 10:02 ` Colin Ian King
2017-09-13 10:04 ` Julia Lawall
2017-09-13 10:04 ` Julia Lawall
2017-09-13 10:05 ` Colin Ian King
2017-09-13 10:05 ` Colin Ian King
2017-09-13 10:21 ` Dan Carpenter [this message]
2017-09-13 10:21 ` Dan Carpenter
2017-09-14 17:13 ` Colin Ian King
2017-09-14 17:13 ` Colin Ian King
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170913102123.nsg7dpolysn6fk5u@mwanda \
--to=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.