>> Does your understanding of programming language details differ from the view >> of >> SEI CERT C Coding Standard (from the Carnegie Mellon University)? >> https://cmu-sei.github.io/secure-coding-standards/sei-cert-c-coding-standard/rules/expressions-exp/exp34-c/ > > We recently discussed a similar case where several people told you that > the "problem" you fixed wasn't actually a problem.
We came along possible adjustments according to an application of another questionable sanity check. > This patch is in the > same category and your reference doesn't match the code touched here. Will development interests grow if bug reports will follow by further known source code analysis tools? https://cmu-sei.github.io/secure-coding-standards/sei-cert-c-coding-standard/rules/expressions-exp/exp34-c/#automated-detection > Please stop to absorb maintainer attention with useless stuff. Do we need to start negotiations for allocation of a corresponding CVE ID (as something happened for similar control flows before)? https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/cve.rst?h=v7.2-rc3#n16 Regards, Markus
