Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 21 Jun 2023 11:36:06 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     "Manthey, Norbert" <nmanthey@amazon.de>
Cc:     "Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
        "Stieger, Andreas" <astieger@amazon.de>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux kernel Coverity model file
Message-ID: <202306211134.C301FEB6@keescook>
References: <ccca1437bf0885924619271a3f3ddd17af018149.camel@amazon.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ccca1437bf0885924619271a3f3ddd17af018149.camel@amazon.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 01:44:01PM +0000, Manthey, Norbert wrote:
> some time ago you pointed me at the github copy of the Coverity model
> that is used for the Linux kernel analysis [1].

Hi!

> I investigated the effect of using this model, and compared defects
> reported with and without the model. Before I deep dive into
> modifications, I wanted to understand whether there is a more recent
> version (the current one is about 4 years old). I currently have no
> access to the public linux dashboard to directly check the effect
> there.
> 
> In case there is a more recent model file, can you please update the
> github repository?

This model file is current -- we haven't changed it in quite some time.

> In case I find additions, is the following a good procedure to share
> model updates? I would run an analysis on a defined Linux commit with
> the current model and the proposed additions, and would report the
> effect on the reported defects. Is there anything else I am missing?

Yes please! Either send a patch to the linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
mailing list or send a PR to the github repo.

-Kees

> [1] https://github.com/kees/coverity-linux

-- 
Kees Cook