linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: befs: remove unneeded initialization to zero

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]

Message-ID: <579F45E4.3030108@osg.samsung.com>
Date:	Mon, 01 Aug 2016 13:51:48 +0100
From:	Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@....samsung.com>
To:	Salah Triki <salah.triki@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
CC:	mhocko@...e.com, vdavydov@...tuozzo.com,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: befs: remove unneeded initialization to zero

On 31/07/16 21:34, Salah Triki wrote:
> off is reinitialized by befs_read_datastream, so no need to init it with
> zero in the beginning of befs_bt_read_node.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Salah Triki <salah.triki@...il.com>
> ---
>  fs/befs/btree.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/befs/btree.c b/fs/befs/btree.c
> index e59ad20..a0e8cfa 100644
> --- a/fs/befs/btree.c
> +++ b/fs/befs/btree.c
> @@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ static int
>  befs_bt_read_node(struct super_block *sb, const befs_data_stream *ds,
>  		  struct befs_btree_node *node, befs_off_t node_off)
>  {
> -	uint off = 0;
> +	uint off;
>  
>  	befs_debug(sb, "---> %s", __func__);
>  
> 

Hi Salah,

I will quote Andrew here:
"With this code:

	int foo;

	bar(&foo);

	whatever = foo;

some versions of gcc will warn that foo might be used uninitialized. 
Other versions of gcc don't do this.  That's why the seemingly-unneeded
initializations are there."

You can read the rest of his reply to when I sent the same change 2
months ago :)

https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/1/875

Sorry, I agree with him to keep the code as it is.

Nacked.

Thanks,
Luis