[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YHXT4kIrs28daRER@zen>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 10:25:01 -0700
From: Boris Burkov <boris@....io>
To: Khaled ROMDHANI <khaledromdhani216@...il.com>
Cc: clm@...com, josef@...icpanda.com, dsterba@...e.com,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH-next] fs/btrfs: Fix uninitialized variable
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 02:06:04PM +0100, Khaled ROMDHANI wrote:
> The variable zone is not initialized. It
> may causes a failed assertion.
>
> Addresses-Coverity: ("Uninitialized variables")
>
> Signed-off-by: Khaled ROMDHANI <khaledromdhani216@...il.com>
Reviewed-by: Boris Burkov <boris@....io>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/zoned.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> index eeb3ebe11d7a..ee15ab8dccb5 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ static int sb_write_pointer(struct block_device *bdev, struct blk_zone *zones,
> */
> static inline u32 sb_zone_number(int shift, int mirror)
> {
> - u64 zone;
> + u64 zone = 0;
>
> ASSERT(mirror < BTRFS_SUPER_MIRROR_MAX);
Thanks for the fix.
I assume this was dug up by coverity static analysis rather than hitting
it in a live system?
Since there is already an assert for the pre-condition 'mirror < max',
I feel like it would make sense to also add one for mirror > 0.
> switch (mirror) {
> --
> 2.17.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists