[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18d709710608301225x7407b216o74420d0b4034a484@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:25:03 -0300
From: "Julio Auto" <mindvortex@...il.com>
To: "David Wagner" <daw-usenet@...erner.cs.berkeley.edu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [S390] cio: kernel stack overflow.
First of all, about your previous e-mail: you're correct, the members
not explicitly initialized behave like when a _static_ object is not
explicitly initialized (ie., zero'ing it), instead of behaving like an
_automatic_ object not being explicitly initialized (which was the
kind of behavior I was expecting). This is part of the C99
specification, indeed.
See section 6.7.8, constraints no. 10 and 19, for more info.
On 8/30/06, David Wagner <daw@...berkeley.edu> wrote:
> I don't see any obvious place that zeroes out cdev->id.
> In particular, it looks like cdev->id.match_flags and .driver_info
> are never cleared (i.e., they retain whatever old garbage they had
> before). More importantly, if anyone ever adds any more fields to
> struct ccw_device_id, then they will also be retain old garbage values,
> which is a maintenance pitfall. Is this right, or did I miss something
> again?
Nicely pointed out, I hadn't thought about this possible maintenance
issue. Looks like a nice place for a memset() to reside.
Cheers,
Julio Auto
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists