linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: prefer = {} initializations to = {0}

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: <e07845c0348f389756b76e34b4728a95aa48038a.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Thu, 05 Aug 2021 11:04:15 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        cocci <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>
Cc:     Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: prefer = {} initializations to = {0}

On Thu, 2021-08-05 at 05:27 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-08-05 at 13:43 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > The "= {};" style empty struct initializer is preferred over = {0}.
> > It avoids the situation where the first struct member is a pointer and
> > that generates a Sparse warning about assigning using zero instead of
> > NULL.  Also it's just nicer to look at.

Perhaps a cocci script like the below could help too:

$ cat zero_init_struct.cocci
@@
identifier name;
identifier t;
@@

	struct name t = {
-	       0
	};

@@
identifier name;
identifier t;
identifier member;
@@

	struct name t = {
	       ...,
		.member = {
-		0
		},
		...,
	};