linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] FC: cifs: Initialized an uninitialized variable

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AANLkTi=bLX_mz6fRJxWEcfwpq9T+7gYximLJrdY1K1EY@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 7 Mar 2011 20:48:50 -0800
From:	Vinay Sawal <vinaysawal@...il.com>
To:	Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, sfrench@...ba.org,
	linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] FC: cifs: Initialized an uninitialized variable

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Steve French <smfrench@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 08:00:09PM -0800, Vinay Sawal wrote:
>>> Removed a compile time warning by initializing an uninitialized variable.
>>
>>> -     int rc;
>>> +     int rc = -EFAULT;
>>
>> Why is that the right thing to do?  Other than "it made the compiler to
>> STFU, therefore it is Good(tm)", please.
>
> Hard to disagree with Al's logic, although changing the scope of rc to
> within the for loop might also make both your compiler happy and more
> sense.   In any case, I prefer real bug fixes.

Completely agree. Thanks for the clarification. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Thanks,
Vinay




>
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>
--
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/