linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] qla2xxx: avoid maybe

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, 16 Mar 2016 07:24:22 -0700
From:	James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Himanshu Madhani <himanshu.madhani@...gic.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Dept-Eng QLA2xxx Upstream <qla2xxx-upstream@...gic.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	Nicholas Bellinger <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
	Quinn Tran <quinn.tran@...gic.com>,
	Alexei Potashnik <alexei@...estorage.com>,
	Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>,
	Swapnil Nagle <swapnil.nagle@...estorage.com>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] qla2xxx: avoid maybe_uninitialized warning

On Wed, 2016-03-16 at 14:05 +0000, Himanshu Madhani wrote:
> 
> On 3/16/16, 5:59 AM, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday 15 March 2016 14:49:14 James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2016-03-15 at 22:40 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > This slightly rearranges the code to move the second if() block
> > > > into the first one, to avoid the warning while retaining the
> > > > behavior of the code.
> > > 
> > > I thought our usual policy was to ask someone to fix the compiler 
> > > when it emitted a spurious warning.
> > 
> > No, the rule is that we shouldn't blindly add initializations to
> > the variables when the compiler should have figured it out.
> > 
> > In this case, I wouldn't expect the compiler to ever see through
> > the unlikely() macro, and I'm not adding a potentially 
> > counterproductive initialization, so I see no reason not to apply
> > the patch.

OK, as long as there's a good reason why the compiler can never be
fixed to sort out this case.

> I would like to keep unlikely() macro in the code. This patch looks
> good.
> 
> Acked-By: Himanshu Madhani <himanshu.madhani@...gic.com>

Well, OK that's good enough for me.

James