linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the tip tree

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, 14 Dec 2016 09:05:10 +0100
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
        linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        David Gstir <david@...ma-star.at>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the tip tree

Stephen, Ingo,

CC'ing David.

On 14.12.2016 08:24, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>>
>> After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
>> produced this warning:
>>
>> fs/ubifs/dir.c: In function 'ubifs_readdir':
>> fs/ubifs/dir.c:629:13: warning: 'fstr_real_len' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>>     fstr.len = fstr_real_len;
>>              ^
>>
>> Introduced by commit
>>
>>   f4f61d2cc6d8 ("ubifs: Implement encrypted filenames")
>>
>> This is a false positive because assignment and use are both protected by
>> "if (encrypted)".
>>
>> I have no idea why this did not turn up earlier in my builds.
> 
> FYI, f4f61d2cc6d8 is not in the -tip tree, so it cannot possibly have introduced 
> this warning.

The commit comes via my UBIFS tree. But I never saw this warning, I'm testing with both gcc-4.8 and gcc-6.1.
Let me investigate into that.

Does today's tip change some compiler flags?

Thanks,
//richard