[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210419173225.GT7604@twin.jikos.cz>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 19:32:25 +0200
From: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
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 v2] fs/btrfs: Fix uninitialized variable
On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 04:36:16PM +0100, Khaled ROMDHANI wrote:
> As reported by the Coverity static analysis.
> The variable zone is not initialized which
> may causes a failed assertion.
>
> Addresses-Coverity: ("Uninitialized variables")
> Signed-off-by: Khaled ROMDHANI <khaledromdhani216@...il.com>
> ---
> v2: add a default case as proposed by David Sterba
> ---
> fs/btrfs/zoned.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> index eeb3ebe11d7a..82527308d165 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> @@ -143,6 +143,9 @@ static inline u32 sb_zone_number(int shift, int mirror)
> case 0: zone = 0; break;
> case 1: zone = 1ULL << (BTRFS_SB_LOG_FIRST_SHIFT - shift); break;
> case 2: zone = 1ULL << (BTRFS_SB_LOG_SECOND_SHIFT - shift); break;
> + default:
> + zone = 0;
Well yeah but this is not a valid case at all, we'd rather catch that as
an assertion failure than letting is silently continue.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists