linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs/btrfs: Fix uninitialized variable

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: <20210503115515.GJ21598@kadam>
Date:   Mon, 3 May 2021 14:55:15 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
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] fs/btrfs: Fix uninitialized variable

On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:13:12AM +0100, Khaled Romdhani wrote:
> On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 10:23:22AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 11:50:46PM +0100, Khaled ROMDHANI wrote:
> > > Fix the warning: variable 'zone' is used
> > > uninitialized whenever '?:' condition is true.
> > > 
> > > Fix that by preventing the code to reach
> > > the last assertion. If the variable 'mirror'
> > > is invalid, the assertion fails and we return
> > > immediately.
> > > 
> > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Khaled ROMDHANI <khaledromdhani216@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > 
> > This is not how you send a v4 patch...  v2 patches have to apply to the
> > original code and not on top of the patched code.
> > 
> > I sort of think you should find a different thing to work on.  This code
> > works fine as-is.  Just leave it and try to find a real bug and fix that
> > instead.
> > 
> > regards,
> > dan carpenter
> >
> 
> Sorry, I was wrong and I shall send a proper V4.
> 
> Yes, this code works fine just a warning caught by Coverity scan analysis. 

We're going to a lot of work to silence a static checker false positive.
As a rule, I tell people to ignore the static checker when it is wrong.

Btw, Smatch parses this code correctly and understands that the callers
only pass valid values for "mirror".

regards,
dan carpenter