On Sun, 2016-08-28 at 23:40 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2016, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2016-08-28 at 21:38 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > On Sun, 28 Aug 2016, Nicolas Iooss wrote:
> > > > On 28/08/16 19:50, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 2016-08-28 at 19:39 +0200, Nicolas Iooss wrote:
> > > > >> In sst_prepare_and_post_msg(), when a response is received in "block",
> > > > >> the following code gets executed:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> *data = kzalloc(block->size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > >> memcpy(data, (void *) block->data, block->size);
> > > > >
> > > > > Yuck, thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Julia, Dan, could cocci or smatch help find any other
> > > > > similar misuses here?
> > []
> > > I tried the following semantic patch, that is quite general, and the fixed
> > > issue was the only report.
> > >
> > > @@
> > > expression x,y,sz;
> > > identifier f,g;
> > > @@
> > >
> > > * *x = f(sz,...);
> > > ...
> > > * g(x,y,sz);
> >
> > Hi Julia,
> >
> > This would find exactly the same form, but I think
> > the question is are there assignments of a **pp
> > that should have been *pp
> >
> > Something like:
> >
> > @@
> > type P;
> > P **pp;
> > @@
> >
> > * pp = \|\|(..., sizeof(P), ...)
> I didn't get anything for this. Did you mean for the left hand side of
> the assignment to be pp or *pp? Is the issue that the type is wrong?
Yes, the issue here is the type may be wrong.
A function passed a ** and assigned like:
type function foo(type **bar)
{
...
bar = baz();
...
}
bar is rarely correct and *bar is generally correct.
I suppose the example would have been clearer with something
- pp = foo;
+ *pp = foo;
Also, any function that calls another function with
implicit casts to void * from a specific type **pp
after an assignment to *pp could be suspect.
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
