From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ex.trust-in-soft.com (ex.trust-in-soft.com [188.165.147.96]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5290B390 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 19:50:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from S1688.EX1688.lan (2001:41d0:6b:b00::bca5:9360) by S1688.EX1688.lan (2001:41d0:6b:b00::bca5:9360) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.712.22; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 19:55:07 +0200 Received: from S1688.EX1688.lan ([fe80::4828:9aa3:8b58:6b89]) by S1688.EX1688.lan ([fe80::4828:9aa3:8b58:6b89%14]) with mapi id 15.00.0712.012; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 19:55:07 +0200 From: Julien Cretin To: "Wiles, Roger Keith" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] Clang Scan build results Thread-Index: AQHPwgl9ucruR2NTEUKgGoCehJGf5ZvkcHqAgAAHsYCAAATZAIAAAqoAgAAMEgCAACWhyQ== Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 17:55:07 +0000 Message-ID: <40c32658a4b240f7a4745f95a317df21@S1688.EX1688.lan> References: <2986167.y8P4CbtqGc@xps13> <9E26D17F-C54B-40C7-9A5C-A98C69C723F9@windriver.com>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [84.14.219.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Clang Scan build results X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 17:50:30 -0000 Hi all!=0A= =0A= I took a look at the scan-results from Keith to compare with my analysis. M= y analysis is on test-pmd (called with a specific command-line and with sta= rt tx_first at the prompt) and scans exhaustively for all undefined behavio= rs (overflow, division by zero, invalid pointer dereference or comparison, = etc.). The result (on the last revision of master) is that test-pmd is free= from these kind of bugs in the perimeter of the analysis. This result come= s from the fact that TrustInSoft Analyzer relies on formal methods and is s= ound: it does not remain silent about an undefined behavior. Of course ther= e are false positives, but in my test-pmd analysis it happens that there is= no alarms at all (neither false nor true).=0A= =0A= Although the scan-build report contains false-positives (I found some relat= ed to my analysis) and is not exhaustive (false-negatives), it scans more c= ode than my analysis (I don't look at drivers since I use a generic driver = to exhaustively emulate all network behaviors, and I don't look at app/test= which seems to contain also a lot of alarms).=0A= =0A= I will soon make my analysis public and I regularly replay it on new versio= ns of the master branch. Anyone interested can already contact me for more = information.=0A= =0A= Cheers,=0A= Julien=0A=