linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: silence an uninitialized variable 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 5 Apr 2019 10:33:01 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Mukesh Ojha <mojha@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
        David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: silence an uninitialized variable warning

On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 12:38:19PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> 
> On 4/4/2019 3:06 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 02:47:39PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> > > On 4/4/2019 2:12 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > Smatch complains that "ret" might be uninitialized.  I can see why it
> > > > generates the warning, but I don't know if it's actually possible.
> > > > Anyway initializing "ret" here is harmless.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >    drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c | 2 +-
> > > >    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c
> > > > index 1c488024c698..fc58d660692f 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c
> > > > @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ static int __qcom_mdt_load(struct device *dev, const struct firmware *fw,
> > > >    	if (reloc_base)
> > > >    		*reloc_base = mem_reloc;
> > > > -
> > > > +	ret = 0;
> > > 
> > > You are overriding the value here, better keep it at the start.
> > I like how I wrote it.  It makes it clear that this is the success path.
> 
> 
> But think about a case when this request_firmware_into_buf fails or the
> snippet above that can set the ret with error value
> 
> right.. is not that possible?..and ret = 0 stops propagating the error
> properly.
> 

Gar.  I read "goto out;" instead of "break;".  It probably should be
goto out though...  Anyway, I will resend.

Thanks!

regards,
dan carpenter