Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-148896-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240415-fix-cocci-v1-0-477afb23728b@chromium.org>
 <a003494c-a1a9-4fcd-83d8-766a75d6bbb2@moroto.mountain> <20240417155112.GQ12561@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240417155112.GQ12561@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
From: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 18:19:14 +0200
Message-ID: <CANiDSCs_qOXkhzuL+cFhpw0hvFMwU0TYyN2B5ZdAStb96TTKFA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/35] media: Fix coccinelle warning/errors
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>, 
	Martin Tuma <martin.tuma@digiteqautomotive.com>, 
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl>, 
	Hugues Fruchet <hugues.fruchet@foss.st.com>, Alain Volmat <alain.volmat@foss.st.com>, 
	Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>, Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>, 
	Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski@bootlin.com>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>, 
	Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@gmail.com>, Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.org>, 
	Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>, 
	Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>, Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@nvidia.com>, 
	Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com>, Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>, 
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>, 
	Sergey Kozlov <serjk@netup.ru>, Abylay Ospan <aospan@netup.ru>, 
	Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar>, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>, 
	Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.k.varbanov@gmail.com>, Vikash Garodia <quic_vgarodia@quicinc.com>, 
	"Bryan O'Donoghue" <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org>, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>, 
	Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>, Benjamin Mugnier <benjamin.mugnier@foss.st.com>, 
	Sylvain Petinot <sylvain.petinot@foss.st.com>, Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org>, 
	Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com>, 
	=?UTF-8?Q?Niklas_S=C3=B6derlund?= <niklas.soderlund+renesas@ragnatech.se>, 
	Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com, 
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, 
	linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, 
	Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi Laurent

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 at 17:51, Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 11:47:17AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > In my opinion, it's better to just ignore old warnings.
>
> I agree. Whatever checkers we enable, whatever code we test, there will
> always be false positives. A CI system needs to be able to ignore those
> false positives and only warn about new issues.

We already have support for that:
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/linux-media/media-ci/-/tree/main/testdata/static?ref_type=heads

But it would be great if those lists were as small as possible:

- If we have a lot of warnings, two error messages can be combined and
will scape the filters
eg:
print(AAAA);
print(BBBB);
> AABBBAAB

- The filters might hide new errors if they are too broad


Most of the patches in this series are simple and make a nicer code:
Eg the non return minmax() ,
Other patches show real integer overflows.

Now that the patches are ready, let's bite the bullet and try to
reduce our technical debt.


Regards!
>
> > When code is new the warnings are going to be mostly correct.  The
> > original author is there and knows what the code does.  Someone has
> > the hardware ready to test any changes.  High value, low burden.
> >
> > When the code is old only the false positives are left.  No one is
> > testing the code.  It's low value, high burden.
> >
> > Plus it puts static checker authors in a difficult place because now
> > people have to work around our mistakes.  It creates animosity.
> >
> > Now we have to hold ourselves to a much higher standard for false
> > positives.  It sounds like I'm complaining and lazy, right?  But Oleg
> > Drokin has told me previously that I spend too much time trying to
> > silence false positives instead of working on new code.  He's has a
> > point which is that actually we have limited amount of time and we have
> > to make choices about what's the most useful thing we can do.
> >
> > So what I do and what the zero day bot does is we look at warnings one
> > time and we re-review old warnings whenever a file is changed.
> >
> > Kernel developers are very good at addressing static checker warnings
> > and fixing the real issues...  People sometimes ask me to create a
> > database of warnings which I have reviewed but the answer is that
> > anything old can be ignored.  As I write this, I've had a thought that
> > instead of a database of false positives maybe we should record a
> > database of real bugs to ensure that the fixes for anything real is
> > applied.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Laurent Pinchart


-- 
Ricardo Ribalda