[Cocci] [PATCH] Coccinelle: kzalloc-simple: Add more zero allocating functions

Himanshu Jha himanshujha199640 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 26 20:11:29 CET 2017

Hello Markus,

On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 06:39:07PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > We already have zero memory allocator functions to set the memory to
> > 0 value instead of manually setting it using memset.
> Thanks for your extension of this script for the semantic patch
> language.
> Will this update suggestion get any better chances than the approach
> “Script to replace allocate and memset with zalloc functions”?
> https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2016-August/003510.html

Yes! You can check it yourself. And I didn't knew someone previously
worked on this. I was assigned the task of scrapping vmalloc/meset with
vzalloc by Luis R. Rodriguez but when I made a new rule and sent it
usptream, Julia told me find all instances and group into one.

> > +/// Use zeroing allocator rather than allocator followed by memset
> > with 0
> Do you find the shown function name list complete now?

Perhaps yes! If you find anything new then please send to patch out when
it gets merged.
You are most welcome!
> Did you omit a name like “kvm_kvzalloc” intentionally?

Hmm...I don't anything in my linux-next latest

himanshu at himanshu-Vostro-3559:~/linux-next$ git grep -w "kvm_kvzalloc"
himanshu at himanshu-Vostro-3559:~/linux-next$

> How do you think about the possibility to analyse relevant source
> files for 
> functions with the mentioned property?

Three rules for one functions :

- x = kmalloc(E1,E2);
+ x = kzalloc(E1,E2);

It is most basic case.

- x = (T)kmalloc(E1,E2);
+ x = (T)kzalloc(E1,E2);

This for useless pointer cast which is done implicitily.

> > +(
> > +- x = kmalloc(E1,E2);
> > ++ x = kzalloc(E1,E2);
> > +|
> You suggest to use another application for the SmPL disjunction.
> How do you think about to refactor this specification a bit like the
> following?
> +(
> + x =
> +-    kmalloc
> ++    kzalloc
> +            (E1, E2);
> +|

Julia answered this better!

> > +|
> > +- x = (T *)kmalloc(E1,E2);
> > + x = kzalloc(E1,E2);
> > +|
> Why do you find it appropriate to omit a cast at this place while it
> is
> preserved at other places?

What we can do is your best to make a perfect rule with least number of
false positives but can we ensure it to be fully perfect. The coccinelle
tool find can do its best but we are the ones to ensure that the patch
generated is absolutely correct and if it's not, then we change and
improve the existing rule perhaps!

Thanks for the feedback! I am not an experienced developer like you and
used to send out checkpatch 2 months ago and now I work under the
mentorship of Luis. Just to let you know I am just another
*kernelnewbie* ;-)

If found any queries then you can too omit/change rule to see why I
exactly did that!

Lastly, I got it 0-day tested with no errors :-)

I already shared the 0-day test report with Julia and if you wish I can
send it to you too!

Please while replying also cc this to lkml mainling list so that other
relevant people can also put their opinion.

Also, Julia who is going to get it merged ? Please get it merged soon,
and after that I will start sending out the patches!

Himanshu Jha

More information about the Cocci mailing list