linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/28] [v2] infiniband: shut up a maybe-uninitialized warning

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:   Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:32:13 +0300
From:   Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:     Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
        Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
        "Matan Barak" <matanb@...lanox.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        "Sagi Grimberg" <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>,
        Alex Vesker <valex@...lanox.com>,
        Guy Shapiro <guysh@...lanox.com>, <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/28] [v2] infiniband: shut up a maybe-uninitialized
 warning

On 10/18/2016 1:18 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 9:47:31 AM CEST Haggai Eran wrote:
>> On 10/18/2016 1:05 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> @@ -1309,7 +1311,7 @@ static bool validate_net_dev(struct net_device *net_dev,
>>>  static struct net_device *cma_get_net_dev(struct ib_cm_event *ib_event,
>>>                                         const struct cma_req_info *req)
>>>  {
>>> -     struct sockaddr_storage listen_addr_storage, src_addr_storage;
>>> +     struct sockaddr_storage listen_addr_storage = {}, src_addr_storage = {};
>>
>> Doesn't this still translate to an extra initialization that Doug was
>> worried about?
> 
> Thanks for spotting this. I must have screwed up while rebasing the patch
> at some point, this one change should not be there, the other changes by
> themselves sufficiently address the warning.

Okay, other than this the patch looks good to me.