linux-kernel - Re: [NFS] [PATCH] NFSD: fix uninitialized variable

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 28 May 2007 23:19:21 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, neilb@...e.de,
	nfs@...ts.sourceforge.net, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [NFS] [PATCH] NFSD: fix uninitialized variable

J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 06:34:42AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Unlike many of the bogus warnings spewed by gcc, this one actually
>> complains about a real bug:
> 
> No, the calls to posix_acl_valid() in nfs4_acl_posix_to_nfsv4() ensure
> that the passed-in acl has ACL_USER_OBJ, ACL_GROUP_OBJ, and ACL_OTHER
> entries, and hence that these fields will always be initialized.

OK


> But I don't want anyone else wasting their time on this.  Should we cave
> in and add the initialization here just to shut up gcc?  Or would a
> comment here help?

Given what you said above, I don't see gcc, on its best day, will ever 
know enough to validate that that variable is indeed always initialized. 
  So I would vote for silencing it on those grounds.

	Jeff


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/