Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:32:25 +0100 (CET) From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr> To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, David Windsor <dave@...gbits.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "Anvin, H Peter" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com> Subject: Re: Re: [RFC v4 PATCH 00/13] HARDENED_ATOMIC On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:16:42AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:36:47AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > Also, we should really have a "make spatch" target so that we can run > > > > the thing concurrently with -j80 or somesuch, because as is coccinelle > > > > is unbearably slow. > > > > > > In the kernel, there is already the make coccicheck infrastructure. It > > > suffices to add the semantic patch to a subdirectory of > > > scripts/coccinelle. > > > > Shiny.. however: > > > > $ make coccicheck COCCI=kref.cocci MODE=patch V=1 > > /bin/bash ./scripts/coccicheck > > > > Please check for false positives in the output before submitting a patch. > > When using "patch" mode, carefully review the patch before submitting it. > > > > Processing kref.cocci > > with option(s) "" > > > > Message example to submit a patch: > > The semantic patch that makes this change is available > > in kref.cocci. > > > > More information about semantic patching is available at > > http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/ > > > > Running (8 in parallel): /usr/bin/spatch -D patch --very-quiet --cocci-file kref.cocci --dir . -I ./arch/x86/include -I ./arch/x86/include/generated/uapi -I ./arch/x86/include/generated -I ./include -I ./arch/x86/include/uapi -I ./include/uapi -I ./include/generated/uapi --include ./include/linux/kconfig.h --jobs 8 --chunksize 1 > > coccicheck failed > > How odd. I took your patch, added a "virtual patch" line, and ran: The virtual patch line solves the coccicheck failed problem. > $ make coccicheck COCCI=/home/mark/kref.cocci MODE=patch > kref.patch > > ... and after ~30 seconds I had a valid looking patch on stdout. You're not doing the --recursive-includes with all the include paths available. I've been doing some experiments to see whether there are some options that will give reasonble results in a reasonable amount of time. Unfortunately on the one hand refcount is a common field name and on the ther hand --recursive-includes requires procssing a huge amount of code for each file. julia > [mark@...erpostej:~/src/linux]% spatch --version > spatch version 1.0.0-rc19 with Python support and with PCRE support > > I'm using a v4.9-rc4 tree. > > Thanks, > Mark. >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.