netdev - Re: [patch net-next 0/8] Add support for pipeline debug (dpipe)

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:   Tue, 28 Mar 2017 09:58:57 +0200
From:   Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, arkadis@...lanox.com, idosch@...lanox.com,
        mlxsw@...lanox.com, jhs@...atatu.com, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com,
        john.fastabend@...il.com, andrew@...n.ch,
        simon.horman@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 0/8] Add support for pipeline debug (dpipe)

Dne 28.3.2017 v 08:51 Jiri Pirko napsal(a):
> Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:48:34AM CEST, davem@...emloft.net wrote:
>>
>> Please fix up these warnings and resubmit:
>>
>> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum_router.c: In function ‘mlxsw_sp_rif_counter_free’:
>> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum_router.c:208:2: warning: ‘p_counter_index’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>>  mlxsw_sp_rif_counter_edit(mlxsw_sp, rif->rif_index,
>>  ^
>> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum_dpipe.c: In function ‘mlxsw_sp_table_erif_entries_dump’:
>> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum_dpipe.c:220:9: warning: missing braces around initializer [-Wmissing-braces]
>>  struct devlink_dpipe_value match_value = {0}, action_value = {0};
>
> I know about this warning. I believe that it is a gcc bug. It happens
> for gcc 4, but gcc 6 is silent, therefore I choose to ignore this. Do
> you still want me to fix it?
>
Yes, this is gcc bug (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119). The 
problem is the first member of struct is union so older gcc assumes initializer 
like '{ { 0 } }' instead of '{ 0 }'.

IMHO it should be better to workaround this bug for older gccs as gcc6 is not 
only supported compiler.

Ivan