lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [linux-safety] [PATCH] usb: host: ehci-sched: add comment about find_tt() not returning error


On Tue, 13 Oct 2020, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 08:25:30PM +0200, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >
> > > 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?
> > >
> >
> > Sudip and I are following on clang analyzer findings.
> >
> > On linux-next, there is new build target 'make clang-analyzer' that
> > outputs a bunch of warnings, just as you would expect from such static
> > analysis tools.
>
> Why not fix the things that it finds that are actually issues? If there
> are no actual issues found, then perhaps you should use a better tool? :)
>

Completely agree. That is why I was against adding comments here and
elsewhere just to have the "good feeling of doing something" after the
tool reported a warning and we spend some time understanding the code to
conclude that we now understand the code better than the tool.

If you know a better tool, we will use it :) unfortunately, there is no
easy way of finding out that a tool just reports false positives and not a
single true positive among 1000 reports...


Lukas

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-13 07:38    [W:0.114 / U:1.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site