From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E561C433DF for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 17:28:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 840C1206C3 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 17:28:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730157AbgFDR21 (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jun 2020 13:28:27 -0400 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.83]:30588 "EHLO mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730094AbgFDR21 (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jun 2020 13:28:27 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,472,1583190000"; d="scan'208";a="453044118" Received: from abo-173-121-68.mrs.modulonet.fr (HELO hadrien) ([85.68.121.173]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Jun 2020 19:28:25 +0200 Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 19:28:25 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien To: Denis Efremov cc: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: api: add kzfree script In-Reply-To: <65dee3e0-7df9-5b38-fe4c-5de3f70380a0@linux.com> Message-ID: References: <20200604140805.111613-1-efremov@linux.com> <65dee3e0-7df9-5b38-fe4c-5de3f70380a0@linux.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > After all it seems reasonable to me to add forall and memset_explicit rather > than handle all these false positives. Something like this for v2? > > @r depends on !patch && !(file in "lib/test_kasan.c") && !(file in "mm/slab_common.c") forall@ > expression *E; > position p; > @@ > > * \(memset\|memset_explicit\)(E, 0, ...); > ... when != E > * kfree(E)@p; > > Do I need to add "when strict" with forall or it's already enabled in this case? > Do I need to enable forall for pathing "-/+"? forall seems entirely reasonable. You don't need it in the -/+ case. I would put when strict in both cases. julia From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC5BEC433DF for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 17:28:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from isis.lip6.fr (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80AEB206C3 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 17:28:30 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 80AEB206C3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=inria.fr Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cocci-bounces@systeme.lip6.fr Received: from systeme.lip6.fr (systeme.lip6.fr [132.227.104.7]) by isis.lip6.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 054HSSeP022790; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 19:28:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from systeme.lip6.fr (systeme.lip6.fr [127.0.0.1]) by systeme.lip6.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25E8C7567; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 19:28:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from isis.lip6.fr (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by systeme.lip6.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A579D5D47 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 19:28:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by isis.lip6.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 054HSQ1v028304 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 19:28:26 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,472,1583190000"; d="scan'208";a="453044118" Received: from abo-173-121-68.mrs.modulonet.fr (HELO hadrien) ([85.68.121.173]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Jun 2020 19:28:25 +0200 Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 19:28:25 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien To: Denis Efremov In-Reply-To: <65dee3e0-7df9-5b38-fe4c-5de3f70380a0@linux.com> Message-ID: References: <20200604140805.111613-1-efremov@linux.com> <65dee3e0-7df9-5b38-fe4c-5de3f70380a0@linux.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, Sender e-mail whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]); Thu, 04 Jun 2020 19:28:28 +0200 (CEST) X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]); Thu, 04 Jun 2020 19:28:26 +0200 (CEST) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 132.227.60.2 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 132.227.60.2 Cc: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Cocci] [PATCH] coccinelle: api: add kzfree script X-BeenThere: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: cocci-bounces@systeme.lip6.fr Errors-To: cocci-bounces@systeme.lip6.fr > After all it seems reasonable to me to add forall and memset_explicit rather > than handle all these false positives. Something like this for v2? > > @r depends on !patch && !(file in "lib/test_kasan.c") && !(file in "mm/slab_common.c") forall@ > expression *E; > position p; > @@ > > * \(memset\|memset_explicit\)(E, 0, ...); > ... when != E > * kfree(E)@p; > > Do I need to add "when strict" with forall or it's already enabled in this case? > Do I need to enable forall for pathing "-/+"? forall seems entirely reasonable. You don't need it in the -/+ case. I would put when strict in both cases. julia _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci