linux-kernel - linux-next: build warning after merge of the drivers-x86 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20161214135044.57dc96f5@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Wed, 14 Dec 2016 13:50:44 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Lyude <lyude@...hat.com>,
        Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>
Subject: linux-next: build warning after merge of the drivers-x86 tree

Hi Darren,

After merging the drivers-x86 tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
allmodconfig) produced this warning:

In file included from include/linux/kernel.h:13:0,
                 from drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c:52:
drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c: In function 'hotkey_init':
include/linux/printk.h:299:2: warning: 'type' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
  printk(KERN_INFO pr_fmt(fmt), ##__VA_ARGS__)
  ^
drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c:3147:8: note: 'type' was declared here
  char *type;
        ^
In file included from include/linux/kernel.h:13:0,
                 from drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c:52:
include/linux/printk.h:299:2: warning: 'in_tablet_mode' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
  printk(KERN_INFO pr_fmt(fmt), ##__VA_ARGS__)
  ^
drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c:3146:6: note: 'in_tablet_mode' was declared here
  int in_tablet_mode, res;
      ^

Introduced by commit

  b31800283868 ("platform/x86: thinkpad_acpi: Move tablet detection into separate function")

I can't tell if this is a false positive or not.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell