On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, wen.yang99@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > 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 … > > Thanks. > This is more rigorous, we will follow your advice > > > > 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? > > We may be able to handle this situation: > +id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x) > ... > + when != e1 = (T)id > + when != e1 = &id->dev > + when != e1 = get_device(&id->dev) This looks good. To be double sure, you can put (T)(&id->dev) in the second case. When you have a chance please send the revised version. As long as I don't see that it is giving many false positives, I will accept it. We don't need perfection. We need more to eliminate the memory leaks. julia > > > > But it's over 80 characters. > > > > Long string literals can be accepted because of error message search concerns > > around a tool like “grep”. > > Thanks. > We will follow your advice > > >> 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 use the commercial software klockwork, which will also find errors in the code, > but a lot of false positives. > > Regards, > Wen
