From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Markus Elfring Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 15:01:51 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] coccinelle: misc: add array_size_dup script to detect missed overflow checks Message-Id: <4e6083cc-01ed-caa2-a9fb-5f4645eb9503@web.de> List-Id: References: <54ac89f1-5f38-8909-a652-c658a5a1f36b@web.de> <759d33d2-25a2-f55f-7e3a-7481ab5dd0fc@linux.com> In-Reply-To: <759d33d2-25a2-f55f-7e3a-7481ab5dd0fc@linux.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: Denis Efremov , Coccinelle Cc: Gilles Muller , Julia Lawall , Masahiro Yamada , Michal Marek , Nicolas Palix , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" , Kees Cook > Where is the typo? I tried to point a possible replacement out for the word “overlow” by “overflow”. > I can't handle your suggestions I hope that you got chances to take also my patch review comments into account. > because your mails constantly break the threads. I just can't find them > after due to missed/wrong In-Reply-To headers. There are some factors involved for this undesirable effect. * My software selection contains open issues in the handling of mail links according to the communication interface “public inbox”. * Mailing list settings hinder more direct participation (for me). * If you would specify more mail addresses for reviewers (like me) explicitly as recipients, the impression can hopefully become more positive again. >>> +expression subE1 <= as.E1; >>> +expression subE2 <= as.E2; >>> +expression as.E1, as.E2, E3; >> >> How do you think about to use the following SmPL code variant? >> >> expression subE1 <= as.E1, subE2 <= as.E2, as.E1, as.E2, E3; > > It's less readable and harder to review. Can a different code formatting help then? expression subE1 <= as.E1, subE2 <= as.E2, as.E1, as.E2, E3; >> I suggest to move the ampersand before the disjunction in such >> SmPL code exclusion specifications. >> >> + when != & \(E1 \| E2 \| subE1 \| subE2\) > > Ok, I will fix this if there will be next version. Other software extensions which you proposed recently were similarly affected at a few places. >> I would prefer an other code formatting at such places. >> >> +coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0], >> + f"WARNING: array_size is already used (line {p1[0].line}) to compute the same size.") > > No. It's pointless to break the line to save 5 chars this way. Did we get used to function parameter alignment? https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst?id=1b5044021070efa3259f3e9548dc35d1eb6aa844#n93 I suggest to reconsider potential concerns for line length limitations according to such message strings. Regards, Markus