From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 15:07:08 GMT
Subject: Re: Bug in unused.cocci?
Message-ID: <20d1d7a2-049e-cb53-e276-101995b7c9bb@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZF0B2Prhc7jsqa3p@nand.local>

Hi Taylor

On 11/05/2023 15:55, Taylor Blau wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 10:16:21AM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote:
>> I think this is due to a bug in unused.cocci. I'm not sure what is going
>> wrong and admittedly we're unlikely to see code where an strbuf is
>> initialized and then used it without calling any of the strbuf_* functions
>> within our main codebase but it would be nice if the rule could handle this.
> 
> I don't think that this is a bug in unused.cocci, but rather a bug in
> spatch not being able to read t/unit-tests/test-lib.h.
> 
>      $ spatch --verbose-parsing --debug --all-includes \
>          --sp-file contrib/coccinelle/unused.old.cocci \
>          t/unit-tests/t-strbuf.c | grep '^bad'
>      init_defs_builtins: /usr/lib/coccinelle/standard.h
>      -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>      processing semantic patch file: contrib/coccinelle/unused.old.cocci
>      with isos from: /usr/lib/coccinelle/standard.iso
>      -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>      HANDLING: t/unit-tests/t-strbuf.c
>      parse error
>       = error in t/unit-tests/test-lib.h; set verbose_parsing for more info
>      badcount: 3
>      bad: int test_done(void);
>      bad:
>      bad: /* Skip the current test. */
>      BAD:!!!!! __attribute__((format (printf, 1, 2)))
> 
>  From my understanding, spatch happily ignores macros that it doesn't
> understand (like check_uint() and check_char()), so to it this code
> looks like:
> 
>      struct strbuf buf;
> 
>      strbuf_init(&buf, 1024);
>      strbuf_release(&buf);
> 
> which it marks as unused and applies the patch. Strangely, if you force
> it to pre-process with the appropriate macro file by passing it
> explicitly, it works as expected:
> 
>      $ spatch --macro-file t/unit-tests/test-lib.h \
>          --sp-file contrib/coccinelle/unused.old.cocci \
>          t/unit-tests/t-strbuf.c
>      init_defs_builtins: /usr/lib/coccinelle/standard.h
>      init_defs: t/unit-tests/test-lib.h
>      HANDLING: t/unit-tests/t-strbuf.c
> 
> I am puzzled by spatch's behavior here.

Thanks for looking at this. It's good that unused.cocci is not buggy but 
I agree spatch's behavior is confusing.  There is a similar test for 
STRBUF_INIT which looks like

	static void t_static_init(void)
	{
		struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;

		check_uint(buf.len, ==, 0);
		check_uint(buf.alloc, ==, 0);
		if (check(buf.buf == strbuf_slopbuf))
			return; /* avoid de-referencing buf.buf */
		check_char(buf.buf[0], ==, '\0');
	}

Which does not trigger this issue. Presumably the "if" statement is 
stopping it from ignoring the check() macro even though it does not 
understand it. If I change t_dynamic_init() to do

	if (!check(buf.buf != NULL))
		check_char(buf.buf[0], ==, '\0');

Then the static analysis job passes but I don't think that is really 
fixing the problem.

Thanks

Phillip