linux-kernel - Re: block/bsg.c

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, 16 Jul 2007 20:58:11 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: block/bsg.c

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:47:45 -0400 Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> wrote:
> 
>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> The modern way of shutting up gcc is uninitialized_var().
>>
>> Should I convert my misc-2.6.git#gccbug repository over to this, and 
>> push upstream?
> 
> Opinions differ (a bit) but personally I think the benefit of fixing the
> warnings outweighs the risk that these suppressions will later hide a real
> bug.

Tooting my own horn, but, anything in #gccbug I consider to be verified 
to -not- be hiding a real bug.  Human-verified not machine-verified, of 
course, so it's imperfect.  But at least it's been reviewed and 
considered carefully.

I'll look into "tarting up" #gccbug for upstream...  I had missed the 
introduction of uninitialized_var(), which was the genesis for this line 
of questioning.

	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/