On 6/9/20 7:22 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2020, Denis Efremov wrote:
>
>> Check that the rule matches vmemdup_user implementation.
>> memdup_user is out of scope because we are not matching
>> kmalloc_track_caller() function.
>
> Is this a bit over-enginered?
Last patch
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020, Denis Efremov wrote:
> Check that the rule matches vmemdup_user implementation.
> memdup_user is out of scope because we are not matching
> kmalloc_track_caller() function.
Is this a bit over-enginered? More precisely, even if it is nice to check
that the API definition
…
> +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/api/memdup_user.cocci
> @@ -14,13 +14,24 @@ virtual patch
> virtual context
> virtual org
> virtual report
> +virtual selfcheck
Would you like to avoid the repetition of a SmPL key word here?
+virtual patch, context, org, report, selfcheck
> @@ -117,3 +128,34 @@
> Check that the rule matches vmemdup_user implementation.
> memdup_user is out of scope because we are not matching
> kmalloc_track_caller() function.
I find this change description improvable.
Will it become helpful (for example) to mention that you would like to
add another operation mode?
>
Check that the rule matches vmemdup_user implementation.
memdup_user is out of scope because we are not matching
kmalloc_track_caller() function.
Signed-off-by: Denis Efremov
---
scripts/coccinelle/api/memdup_user.cocci | 46 ++--
1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 2
