From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CABDA0547; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 04:36:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C36EC40689; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 04:36:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pl1-f173.google.com (mail-pl1-f173.google.com [209.85.214.173]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6AFC40220 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 04:36:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pl1-f173.google.com with SMTP id o17so19196866pla.6 for ; Wed, 08 Jun 2022 19:36:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SoRJGH98HdqXjm8hWwT16ngI5EfGpwfCdgXO8WhDWiI=; b=gT6Q83ii+CYyR57uE49bx/wWa2Jr1BZ58e+xOugPjWL2oEdcQwELCYk+84UVN5SbIH XNv75+TATLoaL8RMPiKtE/pSNn6Q871YH+oOkOaFoj6zuD155ibgW9d7wlGMJi7cX47p 1RBTpIZMd6eZAQUfYkoVm8QASkFttyeQMZyWjvJfFMR8NBsazqITf8AwQJxUo43ydnE1 VX0Y1WdPaReaXGCktgLBY+tV/CicuMQsd8Z/9T+mFwZEMNIsuIwPprh5jiHng7htLQds jFJcDoCAg3lGgHDRKurl4YpRoW6IZ1UXr9dmIiX0DbTB9qTD52b+JEg2zwH5XY7/sKe0 JQFA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SoRJGH98HdqXjm8hWwT16ngI5EfGpwfCdgXO8WhDWiI=; b=sDFmsAhed0eLUnBvakuYPJWVYdRP9SGtFvGlp66FNcDU/9e0sAZQdwwgSQSJnBbvoG YsigRMLzAhdFKMnoLi/9iPwh/guC4fdjt66ePjoaJRrdifCabmnCRy0qh+wnc1tnIlFt FUQMvN7mPW5mlbMwiVjVe3nRpp93N5okc7qGbmo2OJzgvgj4l6G32K2XJjvi+PJWqxyf /h23WeK7JkH16CoQjvoClM9CS3VaW084/8iIgOu4M9bk26IlzY7fQKHRVdlJbsS4TWhk YnJfms/z+2IjXAkY8fm7sS+SuajUKeemV+9XyVgsEpnj3GK7Vz9/cK9k3uE28WH2xHTT UL+g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533wISHP6ZG9Q4/NdDqQ8I9WEGMslGaqaYzG2AHTb17tsQremyRJ bZ0D+uyC1ldImfZziPI39E5idA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJylPtFfGkK6Qx8i+9kEeJDTsC6Hdxut6ekUXymzsQUdJbZ6S6E9wl0m+swQQhZ0KCrtbyF4xg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:9282:b0:1dc:4a1b:ea55 with SMTP id n2-20020a17090a928200b001dc4a1bea55mr1103642pjo.24.1654742179888; Wed, 08 Jun 2022 19:36:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.local (204-195-112-199.wavecable.com. [204.195.112.199]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i196-20020a6287cd000000b0050dc76281a4sm3317401pfe.126.2022.06.08.19.36.19 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 08 Jun 2022 19:36:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2022 19:36:16 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: "Mcnamara, John" Cc: Thomas Monjalon , "dev@dpdk.org" , "david.marchand@redhat.com" Subject: Re: Lgtm scan of DPDK Message-ID: <20220608193616.24f1fe0d@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: References: <20220527161210.77212d0b@hermes.local> <5572850.DvuYhMxLoT@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 08:35:45 +0000 "Mcnamara, John" wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Monjalon > > Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 9:23 AM > > To: Stephen Hemminger > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Mcnamara, John ; > > david.marchand@redhat.com > > Subject: Re: Lgtm scan of DPDK > > > > 28/05/2022 01:12, Stephen Hemminger: > > > I just discovered that there is another tool similar to Coverity for > > scanning. > > > It gives different results, and might be useful. > > > The scans of github open source projects is already done. > > > > > > See: https://lgtm.com/projects/g/DPDK/dpdk > > > > > > Shows 19 errors, 263 warnings and 111 recommendations. > > > > > > Of course, some of these are bogus. For example, tool thinks are scripts > > are Python 2. > > > > The problem is that we already invest some time in Coverity triage to mark > > false positives. > > Can you check whether this tool has some false positives? > > We looked at this tool a few years ago. > > Some of the good points were: > > * It is automatic and runs independently > * It did find some genuine issues > * Issues have the commit ID associated with them so you could assign them to > > One of the main disadvantages was: > > * False positives can only be marked with a comment in the code > > Nevertheless it is probably worth folks evaluating the issues in their own areas of code and in particular any of the Errors. > > John Some background on why I looked at this. LGTM became Codeql which is now owned by Microsoft. Our internal build system now runs Codeql on all builds, mostly as a security scan. Long term would like to make DPDK upstream clean (so the team doesn't get false warnings) and engage Codeql if possible to resolve the issues on their side (like the Python noise). For now, will try to filter out anything that gets marked