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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 5 Aug 2021 20:17:56 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
cc:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        cocci <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>,
        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, 5 Aug 2021, Joe Perches wrote:

> 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
> 		},
> 		...,
> 	};

My test turns up over 1900 occurrences.  There is the question of whether
{} or { } is preferred.  The above semantic patch replaces {0} by {} and
( 0 } by { }.

julia