[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210729082039.GX25548@kadam>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 11:20:39 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: dsterba@...e.cz, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
Keith Packard <keithpac@...zon.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
nborisov@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/64] media: omap3isp: Extract struct group for memcpy()
region
On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 07:56:27AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 11:37:30PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 02:37:20PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > On 7/28/21 2:14 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 10:59:22AM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> > > >>> drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/ispstat.c | 5 +--
> > > >>> include/uapi/linux/omap3isp.h | 44 +++++++++++++++++------
> > > >>> 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/ispstat.c b/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/ispstat.c
> > > >>> index 5b9b57f4d9bf..ea8222fed38e 100644
> > > >>> --- a/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/ispstat.c
> > > >>> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/ispstat.c
> > > >>> @@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ int omap3isp_stat_request_statistics(struct ispstat *stat,
> > > >>> int omap3isp_stat_request_statistics_time32(struct ispstat *stat,
> > > >>> struct omap3isp_stat_data_time32 *data)
> > > >>> {
> > > >>> - struct omap3isp_stat_data data64;
> > > >>> + struct omap3isp_stat_data data64 = { };
> > > >>
> > > >> Should this be { 0 } ?
> > > >>
> > > >> We've seen patches trying to switch from { 0 } to { } but the answer
> > > >> was that { 0 } is supposed to be used,
> > > >> http://www.ex-parrot.com/~chris/random/initialise.html
> > > >>
> > > >> (from https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/fbddb15a-6e46-3f21-23ba-b18f66e3448a@suse.com/ )
> > > >
> > > > In the kernel we don't care about portability so much. Use the = { }
> > > > GCC extension. If the first member of the struct is a pointer then
> > > > Sparse will complain about = { 0 }.
> > >
> > > +1 for { }.
> >
> > Oh, I thought the tendency is is to use { 0 } because that can also
> > intialize the compound members, by a "scalar 0" as it appears in the
> > code.
> >
>
> Holes in the structure might not be initialized to anything if you do
> either one of these as well.
>
> Or did we finally prove that is not the case? I can not remember
> anymore...
Yep. The C11 spec says that struct holes are initialized.
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20200731140452.GE24045@ziepe.ca/
What doesn't initialize struct holes is assignments:
struct foo foo = *bar;
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists