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  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:   Thu, 2 Nov 2017 13:11:23 +0000
From:   Vladimir Murzin <>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux <>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <>,
        Nicolas Pitre <>,
        afzal mohammed <>,
        Laura Abbott <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: NOMMU: work around maybe-uninitialized warning

On 02/11/17 13:07, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 12:25:47PM +0000, Vladimir Murzin wrote:
>> On 02/11/17 09:21, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> The reworked MPU code produces a new warning in some configurations,
>>> presumably starting with the code move after the compiler now makes
>>> different inlining decisions:
>>> arch/arm/mm/pmsa-v7.c: In function 'adjust_lowmem_bounds_mpu':
>>> arch/arm/mm/pmsa-v7.c:310:5: error: 'specified_mem_size' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
>>> This appears to be harmless, as we know that there is always at
>>> least one memblock, and the only way this could get triggered is
>>> if the for_each_memblock() loop was never entered.
>>> I could not come up with a better workaround than initializing
>>> the specified_mem_size to zero, but at least that is the value
>>> that the variable would have in the hypothetical case of no
>>> memblocks.
>>> Fixes: 877ec119dbbf ("ARM: 8706/1: NOMMU: Move out MPU setup in separate module")
>>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <>
>>> ---
>>> Vladimir, if this looks good to you, can you forward it to Russell's
>>> patch tracker, or otherwise suggest a different fix?
>> Accepted as patch 8719/1. Not sure if Russell will pick it up or not... anyway,
>> thanks for the patch!
> I'd prefer not to at this stage.  Same things that apply that I said
> in the "ARM: early_printk: use printascii() rather than printch()"
> thread - I need to ensure that what I have is stable before 4.14 is
> released, so I'm not accepting anything further unless it is _really_
> urgent.

Yes, I saw that thread, it is why that "not sure" thing.

> This isn't urgent.

Should I resubmit after -rc1 or you'll apply it directly from patch tracker?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists