* [Cocci] =~ runtime improvements?
@ 2018-09-27 18:51 Kees Cook
2018-09-27 21:09 ` Julia Lawall
2018-09-30 15:06 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Kees Cook @ 2018-09-27 18:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cocci
Hi,
This .cocci takes a VERY long time to run against the kernel, and I'd
love to know what I could do to improve it. I assume it's related to
the use of the "=~" operand:
// Replace multi-factor out-of-line products with array_size() usage.
@@
identifier alloc =~ ".*alloc.*";
constant C1, C2, C3;
identifier ISTRIDE, ISIZE, ICOUNT;
expression ESTRIDE, ESIZE, ECOUNT;
expression PRODUCT, OTHER;
@@
(
PRODUCT = ((C1)) * ((C2)) * ((C3))
|
PRODUCT = ((C1)) * ((C2))
|
- PRODUCT = ((ICOUNT)) * ((ISTRIDE)) * ((ISIZE))
+ PRODUCT = array3_size(ICOUNT, ISTRIDE, ISIZE)
|
- PRODUCT = ((ICOUNT)) * ((ISTRIDE)) * ((ESIZE))
+ PRODUCT = array3_size(ICOUNT, ISTRIDE, ESIZE)
|
- PRODUCT = ((ICOUNT)) * ((ESTRIDE)) * ((ESIZE))
+ PRODUCT = array3_size(ICOUNT, ESTRIDE, ESIZE)
|
- PRODUCT = ((ECOUNT)) * ((ESTRIDE)) * ((ESIZE))
+ PRODUCT = array3_size(ECOUNT, ESTRIDE, ESIZE)
|
- PRODUCT = ((ICOUNT)) * ((ISIZE))
+ PRODUCT = array_size(ICOUNT, ISTRIDE, ISIZE)
|
- PRODUCT = ((ICOUNT)) * ((ESIZE))
+ PRODUCT = array_size(ICOUNT, ESIZE)
|
- PRODUCT = ((ECOUNT)) * ((ESIZE))
+ PRODUCT = array_size(ECOUNT, ESIZE)
)
... when != PRODUCT = OTHER
alloc(..., PRODUCT, ...)
Thanks!
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Cocci] =~ runtime improvements?
2018-09-27 18:51 [Cocci] =~ runtime improvements? Kees Cook
@ 2018-09-27 21:09 ` Julia Lawall
2018-09-30 15:06 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Julia Lawall @ 2018-09-27 21:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cocci
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This .cocci takes a VERY long time to run against the kernel, and I'd
> love to know what I could do to improve it. I assume it's related to
> the use of the "=~" operand:
>
> // Replace multi-factor out-of-line products with array_size() usage.
> @@
> identifier alloc =~ ".*alloc.*";
> constant C1, C2, C3;
> identifier ISTRIDE, ISIZE, ICOUNT;
> expression ESTRIDE, ESIZE, ECOUNT;
> expression PRODUCT, OTHER;
> @@
>
> (
> PRODUCT = ((C1)) * ((C2)) * ((C3))
> |
> PRODUCT = ((C1)) * ((C2))
> |
> - PRODUCT = ((ICOUNT)) * ((ISTRIDE)) * ((ISIZE))
> + PRODUCT = array3_size(ICOUNT, ISTRIDE, ISIZE)
> |
> - PRODUCT = ((ICOUNT)) * ((ISTRIDE)) * ((ESIZE))
> + PRODUCT = array3_size(ICOUNT, ISTRIDE, ESIZE)
> |
> - PRODUCT = ((ICOUNT)) * ((ESTRIDE)) * ((ESIZE))
> + PRODUCT = array3_size(ICOUNT, ESTRIDE, ESIZE)
> |
> - PRODUCT = ((ECOUNT)) * ((ESTRIDE)) * ((ESIZE))
> + PRODUCT = array3_size(ECOUNT, ESTRIDE, ESIZE)
> |
> - PRODUCT = ((ICOUNT)) * ((ISIZE))
> + PRODUCT = array_size(ICOUNT, ISTRIDE, ISIZE)
> |
> - PRODUCT = ((ICOUNT)) * ((ESIZE))
> + PRODUCT = array_size(ICOUNT, ESIZE)
> |
> - PRODUCT = ((ECOUNT)) * ((ESIZE))
> + PRODUCT = array_size(ECOUNT, ESIZE)
> )
> ... when != PRODUCT = OTHER
> alloc(..., PRODUCT, ...)
The rule contains ... and it doesn't contain anything much concrete.
Regular expressions aren't used to select files, so you consider all
files. Big disjunctions are also costly. You could consider making a
series of 9 rules. Do you need the double parentheses? That adds more
disjunctions.
julia
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Kees
>
> --
> Kees Cook
> Pixel Security
> _______________________________________________
> Cocci mailing list
> Cocci at systeme.lip6.fr
> https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Cocci] =~ runtime improvements?
2018-09-27 18:51 [Cocci] =~ runtime improvements? Kees Cook
2018-09-27 21:09 ` Julia Lawall
@ 2018-09-30 15:06 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2018-09-30 15:40 ` Julia Lawall
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Lars-Peter Clausen @ 2018-09-30 15:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cocci
On 09/27/2018 08:51 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This .cocci takes a VERY long time to run against the kernel, and I'd
> love to know what I could do to improve it. I assume it's related to
> the use of the "=~" operand:
>
Maybe I'm missing something, but do you need all of those variations? An
expression should match an identifier. I'd expect ((ECOUNT)) *
((ESTRIDE)) * ((ESIZE)) matches the superset of all the other statements
with ICOUNT, ISIZE and ISTRIDE in them. So you only need two rules one
for array_size and one for array3_size.
> // Replace multi-factor out-of-line products with array_size() usage.
> @@
> identifier alloc =~ ".*alloc.*";
> constant C1, C2, C3;
> identifier ISTRIDE, ISIZE, ICOUNT;
> expression ESTRIDE, ESIZE, ECOUNT;
> expression PRODUCT, OTHER;
> @@
>
> (
> PRODUCT = ((C1)) * ((C2)) * ((C3))
> |
> PRODUCT = ((C1)) * ((C2))
> |
> - PRODUCT = ((ICOUNT)) * ((ISTRIDE)) * ((ISIZE))
> + PRODUCT = array3_size(ICOUNT, ISTRIDE, ISIZE)
> |
> - PRODUCT = ((ICOUNT)) * ((ISTRIDE)) * ((ESIZE))
> + PRODUCT = array3_size(ICOUNT, ISTRIDE, ESIZE)
> |
> - PRODUCT = ((ICOUNT)) * ((ESTRIDE)) * ((ESIZE))
> + PRODUCT = array3_size(ICOUNT, ESTRIDE, ESIZE)
> |
> - PRODUCT = ((ECOUNT)) * ((ESTRIDE)) * ((ESIZE))
> + PRODUCT = array3_size(ECOUNT, ESTRIDE, ESIZE)
> |
> - PRODUCT = ((ICOUNT)) * ((ISIZE))
> + PRODUCT = array_size(ICOUNT, ISTRIDE, ISIZE)
> |
> - PRODUCT = ((ICOUNT)) * ((ESIZE))
> + PRODUCT = array_size(ICOUNT, ESIZE)
> |
> - PRODUCT = ((ECOUNT)) * ((ESIZE))
> + PRODUCT = array_size(ECOUNT, ESIZE)
> )
> ... when != PRODUCT = OTHER
> alloc(..., PRODUCT, ...)
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Kees
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Cocci] =~ runtime improvements?
2018-09-30 15:06 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
@ 2018-09-30 15:40 ` Julia Lawall
2018-09-30 16:54 ` Kees Cook
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Julia Lawall @ 2018-09-30 15:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cocci
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 09/27/2018 08:51 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This .cocci takes a VERY long time to run against the kernel, and I'd
> > love to know what I could do to improve it. I assume it's related to
> > the use of the "=~" operand:
> >
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but do you need all of those variations? An
> expression should match an identifier. I'd expect ((ECOUNT)) *
> ((ESTRIDE)) * ((ESIZE)) matches the superset of all the other statements
> with ICOUNT, ISIZE and ISTRIDE in them. So you only need two rules one
> for array_size and one for array3_size.
I agree about the indentifiers and expressions, although he also needs
some rules for the constant case.
thanks,
julia
>
> > // Replace multi-factor out-of-line products with array_size() usage.
> > @@
> > identifier alloc =~ ".*alloc.*";
> > constant C1, C2, C3;
> > identifier ISTRIDE, ISIZE, ICOUNT;
> > expression ESTRIDE, ESIZE, ECOUNT;
> > expression PRODUCT, OTHER;
> > @@
> >
> > (
> > PRODUCT = ((C1)) * ((C2)) * ((C3))
> > |
> > PRODUCT = ((C1)) * ((C2))
> > |
> > - PRODUCT = ((ICOUNT)) * ((ISTRIDE)) * ((ISIZE))
> > + PRODUCT = array3_size(ICOUNT, ISTRIDE, ISIZE)
> > |
> > - PRODUCT = ((ICOUNT)) * ((ISTRIDE)) * ((ESIZE))
> > + PRODUCT = array3_size(ICOUNT, ISTRIDE, ESIZE)
> > |
> > - PRODUCT = ((ICOUNT)) * ((ESTRIDE)) * ((ESIZE))
> > + PRODUCT = array3_size(ICOUNT, ESTRIDE, ESIZE)
> > |
> > - PRODUCT = ((ECOUNT)) * ((ESTRIDE)) * ((ESIZE))
> > + PRODUCT = array3_size(ECOUNT, ESTRIDE, ESIZE)
> > |
> > - PRODUCT = ((ICOUNT)) * ((ISIZE))
> > + PRODUCT = array_size(ICOUNT, ISTRIDE, ISIZE)
> > |
> > - PRODUCT = ((ICOUNT)) * ((ESIZE))
> > + PRODUCT = array_size(ICOUNT, ESIZE)
> > |
> > - PRODUCT = ((ECOUNT)) * ((ESIZE))
> > + PRODUCT = array_size(ECOUNT, ESIZE)
> > )
> > ... when != PRODUCT = OTHER
> > alloc(..., PRODUCT, ...)
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -Kees
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cocci mailing list
> Cocci at systeme.lip6.fr
> https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Cocci] =~ runtime improvements?
2018-09-30 15:40 ` Julia Lawall
@ 2018-09-30 16:54 ` Kees Cook
2018-09-30 17:11 ` Julia Lawall
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Kees Cook @ 2018-09-30 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cocci
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>
>> On 09/27/2018 08:51 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > This .cocci takes a VERY long time to run against the kernel, and I'd
>> > love to know what I could do to improve it. I assume it's related to
>> > the use of the "=~" operand:
>> >
>>
>> Maybe I'm missing something, but do you need all of those variations? An
>> expression should match an identifier. I'd expect ((ECOUNT)) *
>> ((ESTRIDE)) * ((ESIZE)) matches the superset of all the other statements
>> with ICOUNT, ISIZE and ISTRIDE in them. So you only need two rules one
>> for array_size and one for array3_size.
>
> I agree about the indentifiers and expressions, although he also needs
> some rules for the constant case.
I had to go progressively to exclude cases in an attempt to isolate
individual factors. For example:
E1 * E2
will match:
var1 * var2 * var3
In order to make a best-effort at extracting the multiplication
factors, I need to go in order from constants (ignore) to identifiers
(explicitly correct) to expressions (may overly match)
But yes, it seems the problem is mainly the "..." part, which is unavoidable.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Cocci] =~ runtime improvements?
2018-09-30 16:54 ` Kees Cook
@ 2018-09-30 17:11 ` Julia Lawall
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Julia Lawall @ 2018-09-30 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cocci
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> >
> >> On 09/27/2018 08:51 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > This .cocci takes a VERY long time to run against the kernel, and I'd
> >> > love to know what I could do to improve it. I assume it's related to
> >> > the use of the "=~" operand:
> >> >
> >>
> >> Maybe I'm missing something, but do you need all of those variations? An
> >> expression should match an identifier. I'd expect ((ECOUNT)) *
> >> ((ESTRIDE)) * ((ESIZE)) matches the superset of all the other statements
> >> with ICOUNT, ISIZE and ISTRIDE in them. So you only need two rules one
> >> for array_size and one for array3_size.
> >
> > I agree about the indentifiers and expressions, although he also needs
> > some rules for the constant case.
>
> I had to go progressively to exclude cases in an attempt to isolate
> individual factors. For example:
>
> E1 * E2
>
> will match:
>
> var1 * var2 * var3
I think you could just do E1 * E2 * E3 before E1 * E2?
>
> In order to make a best-effort at extracting the multiplication
> factors, I need to go in order from constants (ignore) to identifiers
> (explicitly correct) to expressions (may overly match)
>
> But yes, it seems the problem is mainly the "..." part, which is unavoidable.
Maybe it would be good to have some special cases? Are the
multiplications often right next to the allocation? Or if there is
something that is often between them, then it could be useful to make a
special case for that.
julia
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-09-30 17:11 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-09-27 18:51 [Cocci] =~ runtime improvements? Kees Cook
2018-09-27 21:09 ` Julia Lawall
2018-09-30 15:06 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2018-09-30 15:40 ` Julia Lawall
2018-09-30 16:54 ` Kees Cook
2018-09-30 17:11 ` Julia Lawall
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).