As part of my work, I need to annotate the reports generated using Coccinelle Scripts as bugs/FPs for recent Linux Kernels, recent as in versions > 3.0 till the current one 3.18.
As I’m reading the reports (newer ones), so today I completed Linux_realloc.new.org.
As part of my work, I need to annotate the reports generated using Coccinelle Scripts as bugs/FPs for recent Linux Kernels, recent as in versions > 3.0 till the current one 3.18.
As I’m reading the reports (newer ones), so today I completed Linux_intr.new.org.
As part of my work, I need to annotate the reports generated using Coccinelle Scripts as bugs/FPs for recent Linux Kernels, recent as in versions > 3.0 till the current one 3.18.
As I’m reading the reports (newer ones), so today I completed Linux_get.new.org.
As part of my project, while reading the reports, I came to know about bugs, using X after freeing it. There were many in the versions 2.4.x and 2.6.x. I was also required to list FPs (false positives) by Coccinelle. This post will be about, what I found for the case of using freed memory.
You can view the complete report as a PDF here and as a HTML file here.
As part of my project, while reading the reports, I came to know about bugs of type where unchecked values obtained from the user level are used as array indices or loop bounds.. These were less in the versions 2.4.x and 2.6.x. I was also required to list FPs (false positives) by Coccinelle. This post is be about the mentioned type.
You can view the complete report as a PDF here and as a HTML file here.
As part of my project, while reading the reports, I came to know about bugs where incorrect sizeof expressions are used, typically leading to allocation of data of the wrong size. There were many in the versions 2.4.x and 2.6.x. I was also required to list FPs (false positives) by Coccinelle. This post will be about, what I found for the mentioned case.
You can view the complete report as a PDF here and as a HTML file here.
As part of my project, while reading the reports, I came to know about bugs of type which were not checking for null before derefencing. There were many in the versions 2.4.x and 2.6.x. I was also required to list FPs (false positives) by Coccinelle. This post will be about, what I found for the case of NULL return values are tested before being derferenced or not?
You can view the complete report as a PDF here and as a HTML file here.
