Re: [cocci] [PATCH v3 1/2] coccinelle: locks: add missing_mutex_init.cocci script

[Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>]

…
> +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/locks/missing_mutex_init.cocci
…
> +/// Report mutex used without initialize. False positives can occur
> +/// when the mutex allocation and initialization happens in two
> +/// different files.


How do you think about to use the following wording variant?


+/// Report mutexes which are used without initialization.
+/// False positives can occur when
+/// * the mutex allocation and initialization will be performed in
+///   two different source files.
+/// * inappropriate data types will be found in the source code
+///   because of unsafe scope resolution.


> +///
> +// Confidence: Low


Will this categorisation trigger further development considerations?



…

> +@r1@
> +identifier s, fld;
> +struct s *mm;
> +@@
> +mutex_init(&(mm->fld))
> +
> +@r2@
> +identifier r1.s, r1.fld;
> +position p;
> +@@
> +
> +struct s {
> +  ...
> +  struct mutex fld@p;
> +  ...
> +};


How “safe” do you find the scope resolution for the searched data types?


Would you like to explain data processing consequences a bit more for
inheriting metavariables after these SmPL rules would occasionally not match?


…

> +@script:python depends on report@
> +p << r5.p;
> +p1 << r4.p;
> +s << r3.s;
> +fld << r3.fld;
> +@@
> +msg = "Mutex %s inside the struct %s malloced at line %s is possibly used at line %s without init." % (fld, s, p[0].line, p1[0].line);
> +coccilib.report.print_report(p[0], msg)

I suggest to use the following statement variant.

coccilib.report.print_report(p[0],
                             "Mutex “%s” within the structure “%s” (which was allocated at line %s) is possibly used at line %s without initialization."
                             % (fld, s, p[0].line, p1[0].line))


Regards,
Markus