From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>, cocci@inria.fr
Cc: Erick Karanja <karanja99erick@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [cocci] Searching for lock calls without unlocking (with SmPL)?
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:33:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <04403bf5-82f6-4c23-a217-0063f802e8ed@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2508021502250.3428@hadrien>
>>>>>> May I expect that only a single call should be marked for such a test case?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I already explained why two calls are marked.
>>>>
>>>> I see further challenges with this explanation approach.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The shortest path constraint is that for A ... B, the ... doesn't contain
>>>>> A or B.
>>>>
>>>> This is generally fine.
>>
>> How does the “shortest path” fit to the statement “action_lock(&blockage2);”
>> from the if branch in your software view?
>
> I explained it already. If you have A ... B, Coccinelle doe not allow A
> or B to occur in the code matched by ...
How does the second lock call fit to these criteria?
> A problem that you see to insist on causing is that by using * you have
> no idea which matches involve which pieces of code.
Partly, yes.
The source code search patterns can occasionally be constructed with more
unique context data.
I hope still that undesirable data processing confusion can be reduced further.
> If you would print
> the line numbers of the involved calls then things would be clear.
I hope still that a better consensus can be achieved also for safer applications
of the SmPL asterisk functionality.
>> Can the path distance be determined anyhow?
I would appreciate a more helpful answer here.
…>>> independent. There is no guarantee that one match will not cross another
>>> one. Furthermore, (just in case this is the concern) when you mentin two
>>> different metavariables, there is no guarantee that they are not bound to
>>> the same term.
…>> Will it become more desirable to distinguish metavariable contents in an
>> unique way?
>
> If you want something you have to express it in Coccinelle.
>
> foo(A)
> ...
> (
> foo(A)
> |
> *foo(B)
> )
>
> ensures that the marked foo(B) involves a different argument than the
> matched foo(A).
Would you like to provide a “guarantee” here?
Regards,
Markus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-02 13:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-23 7:45 [cocci] Searching for questionable call pairs (with SmPL)? Markus Elfring
2025-07-24 14:15 ` Markus Elfring
2025-07-24 14:47 ` Julia Lawall
2025-07-24 15:02 ` Markus Elfring
2025-07-24 15:09 ` Julia Lawall
2025-07-24 15:15 ` Markus Elfring
2025-07-24 15:25 ` Julia Lawall
2025-07-24 15:30 ` Markus Elfring
2025-07-24 16:18 ` Markus Elfring
2025-07-30 12:10 ` Markus Elfring
2025-08-01 7:33 ` Markus Elfring
2025-08-01 8:06 ` Julia Lawall
2025-08-01 8:33 ` Markus Elfring
2025-08-02 10:13 ` [cocci] Searching for lock calls without unlocking " Markus Elfring
2025-08-02 11:18 ` Markus Elfring
2025-08-02 11:28 ` Julia Lawall
2025-08-02 11:51 ` Markus Elfring
2025-08-02 11:54 ` Julia Lawall
2025-08-02 12:02 ` Markus Elfring
2025-08-02 12:10 ` Julia Lawall
2025-08-02 12:56 ` Markus Elfring
2025-08-02 13:05 ` Julia Lawall
2025-08-02 13:33 ` Markus Elfring [this message]
2025-08-02 13:45 ` Julia Lawall
2025-08-02 14:06 ` Markus Elfring
2025-08-02 15:43 ` Markus Elfring
2025-08-02 15:46 ` Julia Lawall
2025-08-02 16:01 ` Markus Elfring
2025-08-02 16:04 ` Julia Lawall
2025-08-02 16:18 ` Markus Elfring
2025-08-02 16:24 ` Julia Lawall
2025-08-02 16:35 ` Markus Elfring
2025-08-02 17:38 ` Julia Lawall
2025-08-02 18:11 ` Markus Elfring
2025-08-02 19:12 ` Julia Lawall
2025-08-02 19:26 ` Markus Elfring
2025-08-02 19:35 ` Julia Lawall
2025-08-02 19:42 ` Markus Elfring
2025-08-02 19:44 ` Julia Lawall
2025-08-02 19:48 ` [cocci] Evolution of software documentation? Markus Elfring
2025-08-03 5:24 ` [cocci] Searching for lock calls without unlocking (with SmPL)? Markus Elfring
2025-08-03 5:34 ` Julia Lawall
2025-08-03 5:55 ` Markus Elfring
2025-08-03 7:55 ` Markus Elfring
2025-08-04 10:55 ` [cocci] Searching for questionable call pairs " Markus Elfring
2025-08-04 11:25 ` [cocci] Searching for lock calls without unlocking " Markus Elfring
2025-08-06 9:30 ` [cocci] Searching for repeated actions " Markus Elfring
2025-07-24 18:37 ` [cocci] Searching for questionable call pairs " Markus Elfring
2025-07-25 7:06 ` Markus Elfring
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=04403bf5-82f6-4c23-a217-0063f802e8ed@web.de \
--to=markus.elfring@web.de \
--cc=cocci@inria.fr \
--cc=julia.lawall@inria.fr \
--cc=karanja99erick@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.