On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 1:49 AM, Fengguang Wu <fengguang...@intel.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 08:14:34PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 05:22:35PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: >>> And do we have a way to add a rule to 0-day to catch these so that they >>> get a warning when they are added again? >> >> >> They could just be added to scripts/coccinelle and 0-day will report them? >> >> For example, 0-day ran scripts/coccinelle/api/platform_no_drv_owner.cocci >> on >> a recently submitted patch and reported it here: >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/201808301856.vmnjerss%25fengguang...@intel.com/ >> >> But I'm not sure if 0-day runs make coccicheck on specific semantic >> patches, >> or runs all of them (CC'd Fengguang). > > 0-day runs all coccinelle scripts. However only auto report out > warnings that are known to have low false positives. > > So if you add new coccinelle scripts that emit accurate enough > warnings, it'd be good to inform the LKP team to add the new > warnings to our auto-report-out white list.
It runs with MODE=report by default, yes? I'd need to expand the cases to cover that (it is patch-only currently) so that would be a roughly 10,000 line Coccinelle script. :) -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
