> …
> > + E = \(kmalloc\|kzalloc\|krealloc\|kcalloc\|
> > + kmalloc_node\|kzalloc_node\|kmalloc_array\|
> > + kmalloc_array_node\|kcalloc_node\)(...)@kok
> …
>
> How do you think about the possibility for any adjustments according to the
> order
> of the mentioned function names in proposed disjunctions for the semantic
> patch language?
I would like to share another source code analysis approach.
I hope that this contribution can trigger further helpful software development
ideas.
@initialize:python@
@@
import sys
def write_identifier(source, call):
names = []
for x in source:
names.append(call)
sys.stdout.write("\n".join(names) + "\n")
@find1@
expression e;
identifier call, x;
position pos;
type rt;
@@
rt x(...)
{
<+...
e =@pos
(kzalloc@call
|kmalloc@call
|kcalloc@call
|kmalloc_array@call
|kmemdup@call
|kstrdup@call
|vmalloc@call
|vzalloc@call
|kzalloc_node@call
|kvmalloc@call
|krealloc@call
|kmalloc_node@call
|kcalloc_node@call
|__vmalloc@call
|vmalloc_user@call
|vzalloc_node@call
|vmalloc_32@call
|__vmalloc_node_range@call
|vmalloc_node@call
|kmalloc_array_node@call
|__vmalloc_node@call
|vmalloc_32_user@call
|vmalloc_exec@call
)(...)
...+>
}
@script:python collection1@
call << find1.call;
place << find1.pos;
@@
write_identifier(place, call)
@find2@
identifier call, var, x;
position pos;
type rt, vt;
@@
rt x(...)
{
<+...
vt var =@pos
(kzalloc@call
|kmalloc@call
|kcalloc@call
|kmalloc_array@call
|kmemdup@call
|kstrdup@call
|vmalloc@call
|vzalloc@call
|kzalloc_node@call
|kvmalloc@call
|krealloc@call
|kmalloc_node@call
|kcalloc_node@call
|__vmalloc@call
|vmalloc_user@call
|vzalloc_node@call
|vmalloc_32@call
|__vmalloc_node_range@call
|vmalloc_node@call
|kmalloc_array_node@call
|__vmalloc_node@call
|vmalloc_32_user@call
|vmalloc_exec@call
)(...);
...+>
}
@script:python collection2@
call << find2.call;
place << find2.pos;
@@
write_identifier(place, call)
Test result:
elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Linux/next-patched> git checkout next-20201016 &&
XX=$(date) && time spatch --timeout 23 --python python3 --jobs 4 --chunksize 1
--include-headers --no-includes --dir .
~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor/report_memory_allocation_calls4.cocci 2>
~/Projekte/Bau/Linux/scripts/Coccinelle/call_checks/20201016/report_memory_allocation_calls4-errors.txt
| echo "$(echo 'call' && cat)" | csvsql --query 'select call, count(*) from
stdin group by call order by count(*) desc'; YY=$(date) && echo "$XX | $YY"
…
call,count(*)
kzalloc,12652
kmalloc,4902
kcalloc,2564
kmalloc_array,859
kmemdup,797
kstrdup,469
vmalloc,405
vzalloc,359
kzalloc_node,177
kvmalloc,154
krealloc,151
kmalloc_node,49
kcalloc_node,44
__vmalloc,34
vmalloc_user,28
vzalloc_node,21
vmalloc_32,9
__vmalloc_node_range,8
vmalloc_node,7
kmalloc_array_node,5
__vmalloc_node,4
vmalloc_32_user,1
real 22m25,049s
user 84m11,257s
sys 0m12,168s
So 18. Okt 16:55:08 CEST 2020 | So 18. Okt 17:17:33 CEST 2020
The log file contains the information “9211 files match”.
Can such facts influence the specification of efficient SmPL disjunctions
another bit?
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
