Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [v5] coccinelle: semantic code search for missingput_device() | From | Markus Elfring <> | Date | Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:09:55 +0100 |
| |
> 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
| |