Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v4] coccinelle: semantic patch for missing put_device()

Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v4] coccinelle: semantic patch for missing put_device()

[Markus Elfring]

> The implementation of this semantic patch is:

Thanks for your extension of such a commit message.


I would interpret the provided SmPL code in the way that it will not generate
adjusted (patched) C code so far.
Source code search results will be presented by the operation mode “report” or “org”.

How do you think about to exchange the word “patch” by “code search”
at affected places (and in the subject) then?


> In a function, for variables returned by calling of_find_device_by_node(),

Do variables really get returned?

The provided pointer should usually be stored somewhere.


> c, for the rest of the situation, the current function should release the
>    reference by calling put_device, this patch will report the
>    corresponding error message.

* Do you expect that the desired object release should be performed only in
  the same function implementation?

* Would you like to pick any software development challenges up around
  inter-procedural data flow (or even escape) analysis for the shown use case?


> Further, for the case of b, the object returned to other functions may also
> have a reference leak, we will continue to develop other cocci scripts to
> further check the reference leak.

I am curious on how these approaches will evolve further.


> +// Copyright: (C) 2018-2019 Wen Yang, ZTE.  GPLv2.

Would you like to add a SPDX identifier?


> +coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0],

Thanks for a nicer indentation here.


> +			     "ERROR: missing put_device;"

Will change confidence considerations result in another fine-tuning for this message?


> +			      + " call of_find_device_by_node on line "

I find that such a split string literal can be unwanted.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst?id=1f947a7a011fcceb14cb912f5481a53b18f1879a#n94


> +			      + " and return without releasing.")

Possible rewording?

+			      + " but without a corresponding object release within this function.")


Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci

Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v4] coccinelle: semantic patch for missing put_device()

[Julia Lawall]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, wen.yang99@zte.com.cn wrote:

> Hi Julia, thank you very much.
>
> > > >> In a function, for variables returned by calling of_find_device_by_node(),
> > > > Do variables really get returned?
> > > > The provided pointer should usually be stored somewhere.
> > >
> > > Thank you very much, we will consider this situation and submit a next version to fix it.
> >
> > I don't know what Markus is talking about here, so I'm not sure that a
> > change is needed.
>
> I think Markus means that we need to deal with two situations:
> 1,  The return value of of_find_device_by_node () is assigned to a variable, such as:
> pdev = of_find_device_by_node(np);
> 2,  The return value of of_find_device_by_node() is assigned to a variable in a structure, such as:
> dev->pdev = of_find_device_by_node(args.np);
>
> So I plan to modify the following to capture both cases:
> -local idexpression id;
> +expression id;

I'm not sure that this is a good idea.  There is likely no need for a put
in the latter case.

julia

> ...
> id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x)
>
> > > >> + "ERROR: missing put_device;"
> > > >Will change confidence considerations result in another fine-tuning for this message?
> > >
> > > Thank you, we will change "ERROR" to "WARNING".
> >
> > I think ERROR is fine. If it is a real positive than it is a real
> > problem. Warning is for things that look ugly, but don't have any impact
> > on the execution.
>
> OK, I will keep it.
> Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> Wen
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci

Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v4] coccinelle: semantic patch for missing put_device()

[Julia Lawall]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1691 bytes --]



On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, wen.yang99@zte.com.cn wrote:

> > How do you think about to exchange the word “patch” by “code search”
> > at affected places (and in the subject) then?
>
> Thanks, we‘ll fix it.
>
> >> In a function, for variables returned by calling of_find_device_by_node(),
> > Do variables really get returned?
> > The provided pointer should usually be stored somewhere.
>
> Thank you very much, we will consider this situation and  submit a next version to fix it.

I don't know what Markus is talking about here, so I'm not sure that a
change is needed.

>
> > * Would you like to pick any software development challenges up around
> > inter-procedural data flow (or even escape) analysis for the shown use case?
>
> We are very interested in doing this work, but currently coccinelle may
> not support data flow analysis, and we hope to contribute a little.
>
> > Would you like to add a SPDX identifier?
>
> OK, we will add a SPDX identifierfix soon.
>
> >> + "ERROR: missing put_device;"
> >Will change confidence considerations result in another fine-tuning for this message?
>
> Thank you, we will change "ERROR" to "WARNING".

I think ERROR is fine.  If it is a real positive than it is a real
problem.  Warning is for things that look ugly, but don't have any impact
on the execution.

julia

> >> + + " call of_find_device_by_node on line "
> >I find that such a split string literal can be unwanted.
>
> Thank you, we will fix it soon.
>
> >> + + " and return without releasing.")
> >Possible rewording?
> >+ + " but without a corresponding object release within this function.")
>
> Thanks, we will modify it according to your suggestion.
>
> Regards,
> Wen

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 136 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci