From c8990359d4b12f14656386526ddf904635076902 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicholas Mc Guire Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2016 17:51:45 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/1] Coccinelle: flag conditions with no effect Report code constructs where the if and else branch are functionally identical. In cases where this is intended it really should be documented - most reported cases probably are bugs. Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire Signed-off-by: Michal Marek --- scripts/coccinelle/misc/cond_no_effect.cocci | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+) create mode 100644 scripts/coccinelle/misc/cond_no_effect.cocci diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/misc/cond_no_effect.cocci b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/cond_no_effect.cocci new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..8467dbd1c465 --- /dev/null +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/cond_no_effect.cocci @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@ +///Find conditions where if and else branch are functionally +// identical. +// +// There can be false positives in cases where the positional +// information is used (as with lockdep) or where the identity +// is a placeholder for not yet handled cases. +// Unfortunately there also seems to be a tendency to use +// the last if else/else as a "default behavior" - which some +// might consider a legitimate coding pattern. From discussion +// on kernelnewbies though it seems that this is not really an +// accepted pattern and if at all it would need to be commented +// +// In the Linux kernel it does not seem to actually report +// false positives except for those that were documented as +// being intentional. +// the two known cases are: +// arch/sh/kernel/traps_64.c:read_opcode() +// } else if ((pc & 1) == 0) { +// /* SHcompact */ +// /* TODO : provide handling for this. We don't really support +// user-mode SHcompact yet, and for a kernel fault, this would +// have to come from a module built for SHcompact. */ +// return -EFAULT; +// } else { +// /* misaligned */ +// return -EFAULT; +// } +// fs/kernfs/file.c:kernfs_fop_open() +// * Both paths of the branch look the same. They're supposed to +// * look that way and give @of->mutex different static lockdep keys. +// */ +// if (has_mmap) +// mutex_init(&of->mutex); +// else +// mutex_init(&of->mutex); +// +// All other cases look like bugs or at least lack of documentation +// +// Confidence: Moderate +// Copyright: (C) 2016 Nicholas Mc Guire, OSADL. GPLv2. +// Comments: +// Options: --no-includes --include-headers + +virtual org +virtual report + +@cond@ +statement S1; +position p; +@@ + +* if@p (...) S1 else S1 + +@script:python depends on org@ +p << cond.p; +@@ + +cocci.print_main("WARNING: possible condition with no effect (if == else)",p) + +@script:python depends on report@ +p << cond.p; +@@ + +coccilib.report.print_report(p[0],"WARNING: possible condition with no effect (if == else)") -- 2.20.1