Re: [Cocci] [v5] coccinelle: semantic code search for missingput_device()
>>> We don't need perfection. >> >> I guess that you noticed in the meantime that I dare to propose >> more software development efforts in such a direction. > > Yes, this is noticable. I am curious then if remaining change suggestions will be picked up by more software developers and reviewers. > It is your choice, however, other people may have their reasons > for other choices... Yes, of course. >>> We need more to eliminate the memory leaks. > > ... like this one. > >> Will this view evolve into further helpful and constructive clarifications? > > Given my above, what is the evaluation of the same question to yourself? * I hope that my contributions can improve the situation also for this software area. * Existing development tools will evolve further as usual. Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [v5] coccinelle: semantic code search for missingput_device()
Hi, On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 09:57:54AM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote: > > We don't need perfection. > > I guess that you noticed in the meantime that I dare to propose > more software development efforts in such a direction. Yes, this is noticable. It is your choice, however, other people may have their reasons for other choices... > > We need more to eliminate the memory leaks. ... like this one. > Will this view evolve into further helpful and constructive clarifications? Given my above, what is the evaluation of the same question to yourself? Regards, Wolfram signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [v5] coccinelle: semantic code search for missingput_device()
> We don't need perfection. I guess that you noticed in the meantime that I dare to propose more software development efforts in such a direction. > We need more to eliminate the memory leaks. Will this view evolve into further helpful and constructive clarifications? Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [v5] coccinelle: semantic code search for missingput_device()
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, wen.yan...@zte.com.cn wrote: > > > Thanks, We will change it to something like this: > > > In a function, for a local variable obtained by of_find_device_by_node() > > > > How do you think about another wording approach? > > > > 1. Precondition: > > It will be checked where the return value is stored from > > a call of the function “of_find_device_by_node”. > > > > 2. The source code search will be continued with … > > Thanks. > This is more rigorous, we will follow your advice > > > > Thank you, but a local variable is necessary. > > > > Would you like to take additional storage possibilities for a safer > > analysis approach into account? > > > > Is the restriction “local” really sufficient when such a pointer > > could be copied to other variables? > > We may be able to handle this situation: > +id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x) > ... > +when != e1 = (T)id > +when != e1 = >dev > +when != e1 = get_device(>dev) This looks good. To be double sure, you can put (T)(>dev) in the second case. When you have a chance please send the revised version. As long as I don't see that it is giving many false positives, I will accept it. We don't need perfection. We need more to eliminate the memory leaks. julia > > > > But it's over 80 characters. > > > > Long string literals can be accepted because of error message search > > concerns > > around a tool like “grep”. > > Thanks. > We will follow your advice > > >> Will any more advanced error diagnostics be eventually developed? > > > > > > Hello, we are just doing the practical work in this field. > > > > Are you aware of additional software design options from computer science > > and existing analysis tools? > > We also use the commercial software klockwork, which will also find errors in > the code, > but a lot of false positives. > > Regards, > Wen___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [v5] coccinelle: semantic code search for missingput_device()
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, Markus Elfring wrote: > > Thanks, We will change it to something like this: > > In a function, for a local variable obtained by of_find_device_by_node() > > How do you think about another wording approach? > > 1. Precondition: >It will be checked where the return value is stored from >a call of the function “of_find_device_by_node”. > > 2. The source code search will be continued with … > > > > Thank you, but a local variable is necessary. > > Would you like to take additional storage possibilities for a safer > analysis approach into account? > > Is the restriction “local” really sufficient when such a pointer > could be copied to other variables? I've lost track of the original semantic patch, but perhaps it needs a when != e1 = e julia > > > >> Can it happen that on other function will perform the desired reference > >> release? > > > > Thanks. > > Because the information of this local variable is not passed to the > > external function, > > this situation does not exist. > > Will copied pointers matter here? > > > > But it's over 80 characters. > > Long string literals can be accepted because of error message search concerns > around a tool like “grep”. > > > >> Will any more advanced error diagnostics be eventually developed? > > > > Hello, we are just doing the practical work in this field. > > Are you aware of additional software design options from computer science > and existing analysis tools? > > > > We also hope that it can support cross-function/cross-file/data stream > > analysis > > and other functions. > > This functionality will need further clarification. > > > > We are also analyzing the principle and code implementation of coccinelle, > > hoping to contribute a little. > > I am curious on how this situation will evolve further. > > Regards, > Markus >___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [v5] coccinelle: semantic code search for missingput_device()
> Thanks, We will change it to something like this: > In a function, for a local variable obtained by of_find_device_by_node() How do you think about another wording approach? 1. Precondition: It will be checked where the return value is stored from a call of the function “of_find_device_by_node”. 2. The source code search will be continued with … > Thank you, but a local variable is necessary. Would you like to take additional storage possibilities for a safer analysis approach into account? Is the restriction “local” really sufficient when such a pointer could be copied to other variables? >> Can it happen that on other function will perform the desired reference >> release? > > Thanks. > Because the information of this local variable is not passed to the external > function, > this situation does not exist. Will copied pointers matter here? > But it's over 80 characters. Long string literals can be accepted because of error message search concerns around a tool like “grep”. >> Will any more advanced error diagnostics be eventually developed? > > Hello, we are just doing the practical work in this field. Are you aware of additional software design options from computer science and existing analysis tools? > We also hope that it can support cross-function/cross-file/data stream > analysis > and other functions. This functionality will need further clarification. > We are also analyzing the principle and code implementation of coccinelle, > hoping to contribute a little. I am curious on how this situation will evolve further. Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
