From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ej1-f68.google.com (mail-ej1-f68.google.com [209.85.218.68]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.5348.1602567457639670110 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 22:37:38 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=Qj5hb2nQ; spf=pass (domain: gmail.com, ip: 209.85.218.68, mailfrom: lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com) Received: by mail-ej1-f68.google.com with SMTP id u21so26478131eja.2 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 22:37:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references :user-agent:mime-version; bh=gYLREbCBt05MLq9RuSN82ybwnKTixZybY8CU73x+FQs=; b=Qj5hb2nQfetMWun2C/7FkWH/es32ZatL0Cnqp2RbrfMMx2+/EUqr7C0gkirXAeggO3 hoDYYnE+Sm2z6HT+A9GSfYXnxlvwrdUCsDLYHuUlc/l9kxKmQ7x30fINVAgDDG3S+553 CWPp4Wnv7RY9HcOUwxZeY78/pXcHTV48C8SuTMLM4ZYvw27y0HHf6ubgET/Qq7epT5Yj HOe18eTQG/UUu1gTJUJR0wKnpdpivHucUjDUjRnF2G427S28lH17hMoDnFOsIKsQO5GW +SR35piZ/dGrNDeSAhFglF9tzDGGJlmj0G1C3M6TG1q/dMtWtyBjMhX5zdTv9EBIooLf Jl0A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:date:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id :references:user-agent:mime-version; bh=gYLREbCBt05MLq9RuSN82ybwnKTixZybY8CU73x+FQs=; b=KJUMB/+dOffT+48HemjfZZ900hCDDSkHMGPoScMOHu54YHqAcKGZHwwVgKwgEOsuvB olM339/k+PNHEQQh7v2VvW1tVOXWpmFan2466HlTfYI+17Uy6lLUSi+HseNtrFePvqxV e3+dZkSfTU+v0KrhkJvR3L7/zkyIaNCiom8ZUY0kfYRtDkDJkvOzl7zgUO5wQZcPU/6l nydA6qURyndSKdXonzlzB1vdd4LEIqeAUY+7YRA24QRzNJuAJPS38qcCfG4eK+6EoST4 Q3wbgvcY+t8kH4rubQChSUk6pzfIWznjppMYpePWcdugOXD5PuYN9rIAGFW1K58rus0P fN8w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533bpeqxcx3mNtzTjRsdrTRntvTQZGErN1uTSEP847XAacw5qnMv jVGQitaQVDeA2j5RbFpgSQE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw2++YSQXSV41iMkqWKkxe5lVcRBwcMikf48LjMGn6E+J5mnrnZBd3TBovbyjrhv3ZLRImhqQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:33d2:: with SMTP id zk18mr32207994ejb.145.1602567456047; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 22:37:36 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from felia ([2001:16b8:2d05:8100:95ae:bd1a:3e4e:4242]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k1sm11772846edl.0.2020.10.12.22.37.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 22:37:35 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lukas Bulwahn" X-Google-Original-From: Lukas Bulwahn Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 07:37:34 +0200 (CEST) X-X-Sender: lukas@felia To: Greg Kroah-Hartman cc: Lukas Bulwahn , Alan Stern , Sudip Mukherjee , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-safety@lists.elisa.tech, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [linux-safety] [PATCH] usb: host: ehci-sched: add comment about find_tt() not returning error In-Reply-To: <20201013052317.GB330398@kroah.com> Message-ID: References: <20201011205008.24369-1-sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> <20201012145710.GA631710@rowland.harvard.edu> <20201012151816.GA1559916@kroah.com> <20201013052317.GB330398@kroah.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 13 Oct 2020, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 08:25:30PM +0200, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 05:10:21PM +0200, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > > > > And for the static analysis finding, we need to find a way to ignore this > > > > finding without simply ignoring all findings or new findings that just > > > > look very similar to the original finding, but which are valid. > > > > > > Then I suggest you fix the tool that "flagged" this, surely this is not > > > the only thing it detected with a test like this, right? > > > > > > What tool reported this? > > > > > > > Sudip and I are following on clang analyzer findings. > > > > On linux-next, there is new build target 'make clang-analyzer' that > > outputs a bunch of warnings, just as you would expect from such static > > analysis tools. > > Why not fix the things that it finds that are actually issues? If there > are no actual issues found, then perhaps you should use a better tool? :) > Completely agree. That is why I was against adding comments here and elsewhere just to have the "good feeling of doing something" after the tool reported a warning and we spend some time understanding the code to conclude that we now understand the code better than the tool. If you know a better tool, we will use it :) unfortunately, there is no easy way of finding out that a tool just reports false positives and not a single true positive among 1000 reports... Lukas