linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] erofs: suppress false positive last

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]

Message-ID: <4bc811ed-f406-1f77-94f7-5e61c4657001@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 May 2020 17:25:05 +0800
From:   Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
To:     Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...hat.com>, <linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
CC:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] erofs: suppress false positive last_block warning

On 2020/5/28 16:48, Gao Xiang wrote:
> As Andrew mentioned, some rare specific gcc versions could report
> last_block uninitialized warning. Actually last_block doesn't need
> to be uninitialized first from its implementation due to bio == NULL
> condition. After a bio is allocated, last_block will be assigned
> then.
> 
> The detailed analysis is in this thread [1]. So let's silence those
> confusing gccs simply.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200421072839.GA13867@hsiangkao-HP-ZHAN-66-Pro-G1
> 
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...hat.com>

Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>

Thanks,