Re: [coreboot] How to deal with Coverity reports?
On 03/14/2016 04:05 PM, Julius Werner wrote: > Is our general goal just to triage or to actually fix (as in: change > code so that they disappear) all Coverity errors? I think it's a great > tool that occasionally really finds that one odd bug, but most of the > issues I've looked at so far seem to be false positives of some sort > or another (either because for some error types it really just > guesses, or because of aggressive overinterpretation of the C > standard). Some of those may be easy to fix, but others may not, and I > don't think we should sacrifice speed or readability to make a tool > happy. It would be ideal if we could just mark a certain issue that it > found as "resolved" somehow (it already seems to report everything > only once, but something more explicit with maybe a comment field > would be nice). Most issues have not even been triaged yet. I agree that a fair amount of issues are not critical, and are flagged because coverity was not designed for low level software. These issues can be classified as False Positive or Intentional, which will make them go away. Stefan -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] How to deal with Coverity reports? (was: Missing Coverity reports)
>> It would be nice to build a task force for fixing the issues found by >> coverity. Any takers? > > What is the best plan? In my opinion, the author of the possibly > “suboptimal” code, should be responsible to fix it. Is our general goal just to triage or to actually fix (as in: change code so that they disappear) all Coverity errors? I think it's a great tool that occasionally really finds that one odd bug, but most of the issues I've looked at so far seem to be false positives of some sort or another (either because for some error types it really just guesses, or because of aggressive overinterpretation of the C standard). Some of those may be easy to fix, but others may not, and I don't think we should sacrifice speed or readability to make a tool happy. It would be ideal if we could just mark a certain issue that it found as "resolved" somehow (it already seems to report everything only once, but something more explicit with maybe a comment field would be nice). -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
[coreboot] How to deal with Coverity reports? (was: Missing Coverity reports)
Dear Stefan, Am Sonntag, den 13.03.2016, 22:27 -0700 schrieb Stefan Reinauer: > On 03/12/2016 01:51 PM, Paul Menzel wrote: > > does Coverity still check the coreboot code base or have there been > > changes? It’d be great to get it going again and to have the errors > > fixed in code that is currently committed. > > There are no automatic runs of coverity right now, but the plan is to > continue having coverity check the code base. That’s good to know. I think it’s very valuable. > It would be nice to build a task force for fixing the issues found by > coverity. Any takers? What is the best plan? In my opinion, the author of the possibly “suboptimal” code, should be responsible to fix it. The maintainer of the affected system should probably come next in line and contact the author, if they are not responding themselves. Hopefully, that will deal with 90 % of the issues. For the rest of the issues, a task force would indeed be nice. I would try to tackle some issues, if I have some spare minutes. A lot of those will be over my head though. Thanks, Paul signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
