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:	Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:14:54 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jikos@...os.cz>
Cc:	Lee Revell <rlrevell@...-job.com>,
	Toralf Förster <toralf.foerster@....de>,
	andrea@...e.de, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: fs/block_dev.c:953: warning: 'found' might be used
 uninitialized in this function

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:23:32 +0200 (CEST)
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...os.cz> wrote:

> blockdev: bd_claim_by_kobject() could check value of unititalized pointer
> 
> Fixes this warning:
> 
> fs/block_dev.c: In function `bd_claim_by_kobject':
> fs/block_dev.c:953: warning: 'found' might be used uninitialized in this function
> 
> struct bd_holder *found is initialized only when bd_claim() returns zero. If it
> returns nonzero, ptr stays uninitialized. Later the value of the pointer is checked.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/input/hid-tmff.c b/drivers/usb/input/hid-tmff.c
> diff --git a/fs/block_dev.c b/fs/block_dev.c
> index 575076c..e87d84a 100644
> --- a/fs/block_dev.c
> +++ b/fs/block_dev.c
> @@ -950,7 +950,7 @@ static int bd_claim_by_kobject(struct block_device *bdev, void *holder,
>  				struct kobject *kobj)
>  {
>  	int res;
> -	struct bd_holder *bo, *found;
> +	struct bd_holder *bo, *found = NULL;

that generates extra code and people get upset.

One approach which we could ue in here is

	struct bd_holder *found = found;  /* Suppress bogus gcc warning */

which (surprisingly) gcc will currently accept, and which shouldn't
generate more code, although I haven't verified this.


But it's all rather ad-hoc and unpleasant.  I tend to think that we should
come up with some standardised way of squashing this warning - something
which stands out when one is reading the code, like

	struct bd_holder *found;

	squash_bogus_uninit_warning(found);	/* useful comment goes here */

which is also unpleasant, but not as unpleasant as a screenful of warnings
which hide real problems, IMO.


-
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ