> Match GFP_USER and optional __GFP_NOWARN allocations with > memdup_user.cocci rule.
I suggest to clarify software design consequences according to such information a bit more. I find it helpful if you would have included also my email address directly in the message field “To” or “Cc”. Are there further reasons to consider for the extension of the recipient lists? > +- to = \(kmalloc\|kzalloc\) > +- (size,\(GFP_KERNEL\|GFP_USER\| > +- \(GFP_KERNEL\|GFP_USER\)|__GFP_NOWARN\)); * Would you ever dare to specify such a source code search pattern on a single line? * I find the specification of SmPL disjunctions questionable for the determination of relevant flags. Could previous patch review trigger concerns and further considerations for the proper handling of optional source code parts? > +* to = \(kmalloc@p\|kzalloc@p\) > + (size,\(GFP_KERNEL\|GFP_USER\| > + \(GFP_KERNEL\|GFP_USER\)|__GFP_NOWARN\)); Would you like to use the SmPL asterisk really only for a single line? How will the chances evolve to continue the clarification also for the open issue “Safer source code analysis by "memdup_user.cocci"”? https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/78 Regards, Markus
