Re: [linux-safety] [PATCH] coccinelle: misc: Check for hard-coded constants

Shuah,

Apologies for the spam. I didn't format the initial correctly and needed
two more tries to get it right (according to the kernel
standard/best-practice). I can resubmit this patch.

Thanks

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:39 AM Shuah Khan <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi Mohammed,
>
> Thanks for your patch.
>
> On 8/12/20 5:43 PM, Mohammed Billoo wrote:
> > This semantic patch looks for variables that are initialized to
> > constants, arrays that are both declared and indexed with constants.
> > A false positive will occur  when a variable is initialized to 0, which
> > must happen for auto variables. This will be resolved in a future patch.
> >
> > The patch was tested against the following snippet:
> >
> > int main()
> > {
> >      int iarr[54]; /* instance 1 */
> >      int j = 0;    /* instance 2 */
> >      int i = 1;    /* instance 3 */
> >      iarr[0] = 3;  /* instance 4 */
> >      return 0;
> > }
> >
> > and it correctly identified instances 1, 3, and 4. It incorrectly
> > identified instance 2, which will be addressed in a future patch.
>
> Please include the output from the tool that corresponds to your
> changes to the script in the commit log on a kernel file.
>
> Also I see 3 patches with incremental changes to the script. Please
> make this a patch series which will make it easier for reviewers.
>
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
>


-- 
Mohammed A Billoo
Founder
MAB Labs, LLC
www.mab-labs.com
201-338-2022