coccicheck: return proper error code on check fail
PATCH 1/1 coccicheck: return proper error code on check fail
If coccicheck finds errors, it should return an error code distinct from zero. Current code instead of exiting with an error code of coccinelle returns error code of
'echo "coccicheck failed"' which is almost always equals to zero, thus failing original intention of alerting about errors. This patch fixes the problem.
Found by Linux Driver Verification project (linuxtesting.org).
--- scripts/coccicheck | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
scripts/coccicheck +3 -2
@@ -128,9 +128,10 @@ run_cmd_parmap() { fi echo $@ >>$DEBUG_FILE $@ 2>>$DEBUG_FILE - if [[ $? -ne 0 ]]; then + err=$? + if [[ $err -ne 0 ]]; then echo "coccicheck failed" - exit $? + exit $err fi }
Signature · 1 line
2.17.1
Quoted 1 line · On Fri, 10 Aug 2018, [email protected] wrote:
If coccicheck finds errors,
What do you mean by finds errors? Do you mean that there is an error in the behavior of coccicheck or that coccicheck finds an error in the source code?
To put it another way, can you give an example of the kind of error you are concerned about?
thanks,
julia
Quoted 35 lines
it should return an error code
distinct from zero. Current code instead of exiting with an error code of coccinelle returns error code of
'echo "coccicheck failed"' which is almost always equals to zero, thus failing original intention of alerting about errors. This patch fixes the problem.Found by Linux Driver Verification project (linuxtesting.org).
Signed-off-by Denis Efremov <[email protected]>--- scripts/coccicheck | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)scripts/coccicheck +3
-3@@ -128,9 +128,10 @@ run_cmd_parmap() { fi echo $@ >>$DEBUG_FILE $@ 2>>$DEBUG_FILE - if [[ $? -ne 0 ]]; then + err=$? + if [[ $err -ne 0 ]]; then echo "coccicheck failed" - exit $? + exit $err fi } --2.17.1
Quoted 1 line
Do you mean that there is an error in the behavior of coccicheck or that coccicheck finds an error in the source code?
An error in the source code.
Here is an example of how the patch changes the behavior of 'make coccicheck' (my comments after the ###):
Current behavior:
$ make M=mymodule coccicheck mymodule/file1.c:97:4-14: ERROR: Assignment of bool to non-0/1 constant mymodule/file2.c:104:4-19: ERROR: Assignment of bool to non-0/1 constant mymodule/file2.c:577:1-15: code aligned with following code on line 583 mymodule/file3.c:439:5-10: Unneeded variable: "error". Return "0" on line 449 mymodule/file4.c:451:5-7: Unneeded variable: "rc". Return "0" on line 455 mymodule/file5.c:433:5-8: Unneeded variable: "ret". Return "0" on line 607 mymodule/file6.c:433:5-10: Unneeded variable: "error". Return "0" on line 440 mymodule/file7.c:774:2-3: Unneeded semicolon coccicheck failed ### <-- Check failed $ echo $? 0 ### <-- But error code signals that everthing is OK
After this patch:
$ make M=mymodule coccicheck ... coccicheck failed make: *** [Makefile:1636: coccicheck] Error 2 $ echo $? 2 ### <-- The patch changes error code
Why does this matter?
1) Because it's clear from the source code that the original intention was to return an error code of checking command, not the "echo 'coccicheck failed'" command.
2) Automated testing systems (CI, for example) rely on the return code.
Quoted 7 lines · Denis Efremov
Quoted 1 line
Do you mean that there is an error in the behavior of coccicheck or that coccicheck finds an error in the source code?
An error in the source code.
Here is an example of how the patch changes the behavior of 'make coccicheck' (my comments after the ###):
Current behavior:
Quoted 10 lines
$ make M=mymodule coccicheck mymodule/file1.c:97:4-14: ERROR: Assignment of bool to non-0/1 constant mymodule/file2.c:104:4-19: ERROR: Assignment of bool to non-0/1 constant mymodule/file2.c:577:1-15: code aligned with following code on line 583 mymodule/file3.c:439:5-10: Unneeded variable: "error". Return "0" on line 449 mymodule/file4.c:451:5-7: Unneeded variable: "rc". Return "0" on line 455 mymodule/file5.c:433:5-8: Unneeded variable: "ret". Return "0" on line 607 mymodule/file6.c:433:5-10: Unneeded variable: "error". Return "0" on line 440 mymodule/file7.c:774:2-3: Unneeded semicolon coccicheck failed ### <-- Check failed
Are you sure that this coccicheck failed has any connection to the various messages printed above it? Normally Coccinelle has no idea about the semantics of messages printed using python script code. I'm not sure what would cause it to return an error code because a particular script was activated.
julia
Quoted 17 lines
$ echo $? 0 ### <-- But error code signals that everthing is OKAfter this patch:
$ make M=mymodule coccicheck ... coccicheck failed make: *** [Makefile:1636: coccicheck] Error 2 $ echo $? 2 ### <-- The patch changes error codeWhy does this matter?
1) Because it's clear from the source code that the original intention was to return an error code of checking command, not the "echo 'coccicheck failed'" command.
2) Automated testing systems (CI, for example) rely on the return code.
My mistake. Initially, I thought that this line signals about errors in the code, but now I see that this is about the tool's internal error. However, this doesn't change the fact that coccicheck returns the improper error code.
I will reformulate the commit message and send the v2 patch with the same diff. Thank you for clarifying things.
Quoted 7 lines · Denis Efremov
My mistake. Initially, I thought that this line signals about errors in the code, but now I see that this is about the tool's internal error. However, this doesn't change the fact that coccicheck returns the improper error code.
I will reformulate the commit message and send the v2 patch with the same diff. Thank you for clarifying things.
I would also request to use the latest source from
https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle
Because some distribution supplied coccinelle packages are obsolete and likely more prone to be disfunctional.
For instance: https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2017-December/004799.html
Thanks.
Signature · 4 lines
Himanshu Jha Undergraduate Student Department of Electronics & Communication Guru Tegh Bahadur Institute of Technology
PATCH v2 1/1 coccicheck: return proper error code on fail
In reply to [email protected]From: Denis Efremov <[email protected]>
If coccicheck fails, it should return an error code distinct from zero to signal about an internal problem. Current code instead of exiting with the tool's error code returns the error code of 'echo "coccicheck failed"' which is almost always equals to zero, thus failing the original intention of alerting about a problem. This patch fixes the code.
Found by Linux Driver Verification project (linuxtesting.org).
--- scripts/coccicheck | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
scripts/coccicheck +3 -2
@@ -128,9 +128,10 @@ run_cmd_parmap() { fi echo $@ >>$DEBUG_FILE $@ 2>>$DEBUG_FILE - if [[ $? -ne 0 ]]; then + err=$? + if [[ $err -ne 0 ]]; then echo "coccicheck failed" - exit $? + exit $err fi }
Signature · 1 line
2.17.1
Re: [PATCH v2] coccicheck: return proper error code on fail
Quoted 11 lines · On Fri, 10 Aug 2018, [email protected] wrote:
From: Denis Efremov <[email protected]>
If coccicheck fails, it should return an error code distinct from zero to signal about an internal problem. Current code instead of exiting with the tool's error code returns the error code of 'echo "coccicheck failed"' which is almost always equals to zero, thus failing the original intention of alerting about a problem. This patch fixes the code.
Found by Linux Driver Verification project (linuxtesting.org).
Signed-off-by Denis Efremov <[email protected]>
OK, I get it now. Thanks.
Quoted 25 lines
--- scripts/coccicheck | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)scripts/coccicheck +3
-3@@ -128,9 +128,10 @@ run_cmd_parmap() { fi echo $@ >>$DEBUG_FILE $@ 2>>$DEBUG_FILE - if [[ $? -ne 0 ]]; then + err=$? + if [[ $err -ne 0 ]]; then echo "coccicheck failed" - exit $? + exit $err fi } --2.17.1
Re: [PATCH v2] coccicheck: return proper error code on fail
2018-08-11 5:31 GMT+09:00 Julia Lawall <[email protected]>:
Quoted 12 lines · On Fri, 10 Aug 2018, [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 9 lines
From: Denis Efremov <[email protected]>
If coccicheck fails, it should return an error code distinct from zero to signal about an internal problem. Current code instead of exiting with the tool's error code returns the error code of 'echo "coccicheck failed"' which is almost always equals to zero, thus failing the original intention of alerting about a problem. This patch fixes the code.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Found by Linux Driver Verification project (linuxtesting.org).
Signed-off-by Denis Efremov <[email protected]>OK, I get it now. Thanks.
Acked-by Julia Lawall <[email protected]>
Applied to linux-kbuild. Thanks!
Quoted 25 lines
Quoted 25 lines
--- scripts/coccicheck | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)scripts/coccicheck +3
-3@@ -128,9 +128,10 @@ run_cmd_parmap() { fi echo $@ >>$DEBUG_FILE $@ 2>>$DEBUG_FILE - if [[ $? -ne 0 ]]; then + err=$? + if [[ $err -ne 0 ]]; then echo "coccicheck failed" - exit $? + exit $err fi } --2.17.1
Signature · 2 lines
Best Regards Masahiro Yamada