* Re: [Cocci] Coccinelle: Checking the deletion of duplicate of_node_put() calls with SmPL
[not found] <1562566745-7447-2-git-send-email-wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>
@ 2019-07-09 12:14 ` Markus Elfring
2019-07-10 5:55 ` Markus Elfring
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Markus Elfring @ 2019-07-09 12:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wen Yang, Julia Lawall, Coccinelle
Cc: Yi Wang, Herbert Xu, Greg Kroah-Hartman, LKML, Armijn Hemel,
linux-crypto, Xue Zhihong, Cheng Shengyu, Thomas Gleixner,
David S. Miller, Allison Randal
> 110: ierr_out:
> 111: of_node_put(trng); ---> double released here
> ...
>
> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
Such a detection of a questionable source code place can be nice and helpful.
I constructed another script variant for the semantic patch language.
@deletion@
expression x;
identifier target;
@@
of_node_put(x);
if (...)
goto target;
... when any
target:
-of_node_put(x);
I observe then that this adjustment approach can generate the desired patch
for a source code extract.
elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Coccinelle/Probe> spatch ../janitor/delete_duplicate_of_node_put1.cocci crypto4xx_trng-excerpt1.c
…
- of_node_put(trng);
…
But I wonder at the moment why it does not work (as expected) for the original
complete source file.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/crypto/amcc/crypto4xx_trng.c?id=5ad18b2e60b75c7297a998dea702451d33a052ed#n71
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.2/source/drivers/crypto/amcc/crypto4xx_trng.c#L71
I am curious on further software development ideas.
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [Cocci] Coccinelle: Checking the deletion of duplicate of_node_put() calls with SmPL
2019-07-09 12:14 ` [Cocci] Coccinelle: Checking the deletion of duplicate of_node_put() calls with SmPL Markus Elfring
@ 2019-07-10 5:55 ` Markus Elfring
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Markus Elfring @ 2019-07-10 5:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wen Yang, Julia Lawall, Coccinelle
Cc: Yi Wang, Herbert Xu, Greg Kroah-Hartman, LKML, Armijn Hemel,
linux-crypto, Xue Zhihong, Cheng Shengyu, Thomas Gleixner,
David S. Miller, Allison Randal
> But I wonder at the moment why it does not work (as expected) for the original
> complete source file.
I discovered that a diff hunk (or usable patch?) is generated
if the return statement is deleted (or commented out) before the jump label
which refers to a potentially unwanted function call at the mentioned place.
How will the support evolve for automatic adjustment of such source code
combinations by the semantic patch language (Coccinelle software)?
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-07-10 5:57 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <1562566745-7447-2-git-send-email-wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>
2019-07-09 12:14 ` [Cocci] Coccinelle: Checking the deletion of duplicate of_node_put() calls with SmPL Markus Elfring
2019-07-10 5:55 ` Markus Elfring
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).