linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] EDAC, sb_edac: remove redundant update of tad

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: <55f8efee-a02c-1574-42fa-35e1d3df14f7@canonical.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 May 2019 15:29:42 +0100
From:   Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Qiuxu Zhuo <qiuxu.zhuo@...el.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] EDAC, sb_edac: remove redundant update of tad_base

On 09/05/2019 15:13, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 11:42:01PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>>
>> The variable tad_base is being set to a value that is never read
>> and is being over-written on the next iteration of a for-loop.
>> This assignment is therefore redundant and can be removed.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity: ("Unused value")
> 
> What's that tag's function supposed to be?

These are the Coverity static analysis warning/error message
classifications.  Tagging them should be useful for several reasons:

1. We can classify the types of issues being fixed
2. We can see how many issues are being found/fixed with the use of
static analysis tools like Coverity
3. It provides some context on how these bugs were being found.

I hope that helps.

> 
> I see a lot of those in commit messages but it is nowhere documented in
> the tree.
> 
> $ git grep -i coverity
> 
> doesn't give anything relevant.
> 
> Hmm?
>