linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] staging: erofs: error handing and more tracepoints

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: <173c5e62-6e4f-066c-5526-afd12c53c051@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Sep 2018 21:20:52 +0800
From:   Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@...wei.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
CC:     <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>, Miao Xie <miaoxie@...wei.com>,
        Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <weidu.du@...wei.com>,
        <linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] staging: erofs: error handing and more tracepoints



On 2018/9/18 21:09, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 04:03:37PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 08:31:22PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
>>> (I have no clang environment to build kernel yet... :( I will try later, but I have no idea why it happens,
>>> and it seems a false warning).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Gao Xiang
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or is gcc just being "dumb" here?  What about clang, have you tried
>>>> building it with that compiler as well?
>>
>> Yeah.  Gcc is wrong.  Gcc used to be extra conservative and missed a
>> bunch of bugs, but I guess now they're going in to opposite direction?
>>
>> Smatch gets this correct, but you have to rebuild the cross function DB
>> twice to make the warning go away.  It could be because it starts out
>> with the old vle_get_logical_extent_head() information so it thinks it
>> knows how that function works.

Hi Dan,
Thanks for taking time to confirm this and the detailed explanation ;)

> 
> Ok, thanks for checking (both of you).  Just initialize the variable to
> keep gcc from printing foolish warnings.

Hi Greg,

Ok, if you don't tend to use `uninitialized_var(...)', I will initialize a 
dumb value...but I think it is really useless to initialize it... :(

I will resend the related false warning patch independently soon...

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
>