Re: [PATCH 00/35] media: Fix coccinelle warning/errors

Ricardo Ribalda
2024-04-18T14:51:47Z

Hi Laurent

On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 at 12:53, Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ricardo,
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 06:19:14PM +0200, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 at 17:51, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 11:47:17AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > In my opinion, it's better to just ignore old warnings.
> > >
> > > I agree. Whatever checkers we enable, whatever code we test, there will
> > > always be false positives. A CI system needs to be able to ignore those
> > > false positives and only warn about new issues.
> >
> > We already have support for that:
> > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/linux-media/media-ci/-/tree/main/testdata/static?ref_type=heads
>
> Those are manually written filters. Would it be possible to reduce the
> manual step to flagging something as a false positive, and have a
> machine build the filters ?
>

Do you expect that the list of exceptions will grow?

I hope that once the CI is in place we will fix the warnings before
they land in the tree.

> > But it would be great if those lists were as small as possible:
> >
> > - If we have a lot of warnings, two error messages can be combined and
> > will scape the filters
> > eg:
> > print(AAAA);
> > print(BBBB);
> > > AABBBAAB
> >
> > - The filters might hide new errors if they are too broad
> >
> >
> > Most of the patches in this series are simple and make a nicer code:
> > Eg the non return minmax() ,
> > Other patches show real integer overflows.
> >
> > Now that the patches are ready, let's bite the bullet and try to
> > reduce our technical debt.
> >
> > > > When code is new the warnings are going to be mostly correct. The
> > > > original author is there and knows what the code does. Someone has
> > > > the hardware ready to test any changes. High value, low burden.
> > > >
> > > > When the code is old only the false positives are left. No one is
> > > > testing the code. It's low value, high burden.
> > > >
> > > > Plus it puts static checker authors in a difficult place because now
> > > > people have to work around our mistakes. It creates animosity.
> > > >
> > > > Now we have to hold ourselves to a much higher standard for false
> > > > positives. It sounds like I'm complaining and lazy, right? But Oleg
> > > > Drokin has told me previously that I spend too much time trying to
> > > > silence false positives instead of working on new code. He's has a
> > > > point which is that actually we have limited amount of time and we have
> > > > to make choices about what's the most useful thing we can do.
> > > >
> > > > So what I do and what the zero day bot does is we look at warnings one
> > > > time and we re-review old warnings whenever a file is changed.
> > > >
> > > > Kernel developers are very good at addressing static checker warnings
> > > > and fixing the real issues... People sometimes ask me to create a
> > > > database of warnings which I have reviewed but the answer is that
> > > > anything old can be ignored. As I write this, I've had a thought that
> > > > instead of a database of false positives maybe we should record a
> > > > database of real bugs to ensure that the fixes for anything real is
> > > > applied.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Laurent Pinchart

--
Ricardo Ribalda