2022-04-04 23:53:23

by Nishanth Menon

Subject: [PATCH] coccinelle: api/stream_open: Introduce metavariables for checks

Coccinelle spatch version 1.1.1 reports the following:
warning: line 134: should no_llseek be a metavariable?
warning: line 141: should noop_llseek be a metavariable?
warning: line 223: should nonseekable_open be a metavariable?
warning: line 290: should nonseekable_open be a metavariable?
warning: line 338: should nonseekable_open be a metavariable?

So, introduce the metavariable similar to other check instances.

Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <[email protected]>
---

NOTE: This is currently reported in next-20220404, though I have'nt
bisected for exact fixes tags to be used.

scripts/coccinelle/api/stream_open.cocci | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/api/stream_open.cocci b/scripts/coccinelle/api/stream_open.cocci
index df00d6619b06..d33732f35710 100644
--- a/scripts/coccinelle/api/stream_open.cocci
+++ b/scripts/coccinelle/api/stream_open.cocci
@@ -129,6 +129,7 @@ identifier llseek_f;

@ has_no_llseek @
identifier fops0.fops;
+identifier no_llseek;
@@
struct file_operations fops = {
.llseek = no_llseek,
@@ -136,6 +137,7 @@ identifier fops0.fops;

@ has_noop_llseek @
identifier fops0.fops;
+identifier noop_llseek;
@@
struct file_operations fops = {
.llseek = noop_llseek,
@@ -216,6 +218,7 @@ identifier stream_writer.writestream;

@ report_rw depends on report @
identifier fops_rw.openfunc;
+identifier nonseekable_open;
position p1;
@@
openfunc(...) {
@@ -283,6 +286,7 @@ identifier stream_reader.readstream;

@ report_r depends on report @
identifier fops_r.openfunc;
+identifier nonseekable_open;
position p1;
@@
openfunc(...) {
@@ -331,6 +335,7 @@ identifier stream_writer.writestream;

@ report_w depends on report @
identifier fops_w.openfunc;
+identifier nonseekable_open;
position p1;
@@
openfunc(...) {
--
2.31.1

2022-04-05 06:55:40

by Julia Lawall

Subject: Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: api/stream_open: Introduce metavariables for checks

On Mon, 4 Apr 2022, Nishanth Menon wrote:

> Coccinelle spatch version 1.1.1 reports the following:
> warning: line 134: should no_llseek be a metavariable?
> warning: line 141: should noop_llseek be a metavariable?
> warning: line 223: should nonseekable_open be a metavariable?
> warning: line 290: should nonseekable_open be a metavariable?
> warning: line 338: should nonseekable_open be a metavariable?
>
> So, introduce the metavariable similar to other check instances.

This changes the semantic from matching the specific thing to anything.
So are you sure that it is what is wanted? If it should always be the
specific thing, then you can get rid of the warning using eg symbol
no_llseek.

julia

>
> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> NOTE: This is currently reported in next-20220404, though I have'nt
> bisected for exact fixes tags to be used.
>
> scripts/coccinelle/api/stream_open.cocci | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/api/stream_open.cocci b/scripts/coccinelle/api/stream_open.cocci
> index df00d6619b06..d33732f35710 100644
> --- a/scripts/coccinelle/api/stream_open.cocci
> +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/api/stream_open.cocci
> @@ -129,6 +129,7 @@ identifier llseek_f;
>
> @ has_no_llseek @
> identifier fops0.fops;
> +identifier no_llseek;
> @@
> struct file_operations fops = {
> .llseek = no_llseek,
> @@ -136,6 +137,7 @@ identifier fops0.fops;
>
> @ has_noop_llseek @
> identifier fops0.fops;
> +identifier noop_llseek;
> @@
> struct file_operations fops = {
> .llseek = noop_llseek,
> @@ -216,6 +218,7 @@ identifier stream_writer.writestream;
>
> @ report_rw depends on report @
> identifier fops_rw.openfunc;
> +identifier nonseekable_open;
> position p1;
> @@
> openfunc(...) {
> @@ -283,6 +286,7 @@ identifier stream_reader.readstream;
>
> @ report_r depends on report @
> identifier fops_r.openfunc;
> +identifier nonseekable_open;
> position p1;
> @@
> openfunc(...) {
> @@ -331,6 +335,7 @@ identifier stream_writer.writestream;
>
> @ report_w depends on report @
> identifier fops_w.openfunc;
> +identifier nonseekable_open;
> position p1;
> @@
> openfunc(...) {
> --
> 2.31.1
>
>

2022-04-06 11:44:49

by Nishanth Menon

Subject: Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: api/stream_open: Introduce metavariables for checks

On 08:17-20220405, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>
> > Coccinelle spatch version 1.1.1 reports the following:
> > warning: line 134: should no_llseek be a metavariable?
> > warning: line 141: should noop_llseek be a metavariable?
> > warning: line 223: should nonseekable_open be a metavariable?
> > warning: line 290: should nonseekable_open be a metavariable?
> > warning: line 338: should nonseekable_open be a metavariable?
> >
> > So, introduce the metavariable similar to other check instances.
>
> This changes the semantic from matching the specific thing to anything.
> So are you sure that it is what is wanted? If it should always be the
> specific thing, then you can get rid of the warning using eg symbol
> no_llseek.

Aaah thank you. Will post a v2 with s/identifier/symbol. I still need to
grok the nuance between the two in [1]. Thanks for clarifying.

[...]

[1] https://coccinelle.gitlabpages.inria.fr/website/docs/main_grammar.html
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3 1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D