Know anyone at Coverity?
The recent mention of scan.coverity.com at lwn.net reminded me that the Coverity results for the kernel (what they call “linux-2.6″) have become pretty useless lately. The number of “results” that their checker produce jumped by a factor of 10 a month or so ago, with all of the new results apparently warning about nonsensical things. For example, CID 8429 is a warning about a resource leak, where the code is:
req = kzalloc(sizeof *req, GFP_KERNEL); if (!req) return -ENOMEM;
and the checker thinks that req can be leaked here if we hit the return statement.
The reason for this seems to be that the checker is run with all config options enabled (which is sensible to get maximum code coverage), and in particular it seems to be because the config variable CONFIG_PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES is enabled, which leads to a complex C macro redefininition of if() that fatally confuses the scanner.
I’ve sent email to scan-admin about this but not gotten any reply (or had any effect on the scan). So I’m appealing to the lazyweb to find someone at Coverity who can fix this and make the scanner useful for the kernel again; having nine-tenths or more of the results be false positives makes it really hard to use the current scans. What needs to be done to fix this is simple to make sure CONFIG_PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES is not set; in fact it may be a good idea to set CONFIG_TRACE_BRANCH_PROFILING to n as well, since enabling that option causes all if statements annotated with likely() or unlikely to be obfuscated by a complex macro, which will probably lead to a similar level of false positives.