From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
 by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web12.891.1602515857984511679
 for <linux-safety@lists.elisa.tech>;
 Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:17:38 -0700
Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io;
 dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=default header.b=Sj/jL+Ld;
 spf=pass (domain: linuxfoundation.org, ip: 198.145.29.99, mailfrom: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org)
Received: from localhost (83-86-74-64.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.74.64])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B54A8206CA;
	Mon, 12 Oct 2020 15:17:36 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org;
	s=default; t=1602515857;
	bh=1xZhHA/uDuJ7Gy1WDUFXCvtNvBHEC12Qmx8K7X14idw=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From;
	b=Sj/jL+LdugfJz86Zym6e2oM0sHSAKq0djYYcEJUbRr1EvI7OX09bls/61ZmVETZc4
	 639Zk/cOlV3aKBT0yvYY4Bya6mZmkXlTTex/88TI0ptadYj/86lztw/lOiDfVwLc8d
	 wEqSm/xSHV/NprwRAo5n7Q3au5mprYhc86J8WV60=
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:18:16 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-safety@lists.elisa.tech,
	linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-safety] [PATCH] usb: host: ehci-sched: add comment about find_tt() not returning error
Message-ID: <20201012151816.GA1559916@kroah.com>
References: <20201011205008.24369-1-sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.2010121550300.6487@felia>
 <20201012145710.GA631710@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.2010121659040.6487@felia>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2010121659040.6487@felia>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 05:10:21PM +0200, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> And for the static analysis finding, we need to find a way to ignore this 
> finding without simply ignoring all findings or new findings that just 
> look very similar to the original finding, but which are valid.

Then I suggest you fix the tool that "flagged" this, surely this is not
the only thing it detected with a test like this, right?

What tool reported this?

thanks,

greg k-h