linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] EDAC/device: Remove redundant initialization of pointer dev

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: <YTdI98H5yF55fYsC@zn.tnic>
Date:   Tue, 7 Sep 2021 13:11:51 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>
Cc:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] EDAC/device: Remove redundant initialization of pointer
 dev_ctl

On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 11:59:13AM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> 
> The variable dev_ctl is being initialized with a value that is never
> read, it is being updated later on. The assignment is redundant and
> can be removed.
> 
> Addresses-Coverity: ("Unused value")

I'll never get a public reference to what those things mean, will I?

> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> ---
>  drivers/edac/edac_device.c | 1 -
>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/edac/edac_device.c b/drivers/edac/edac_device.c
> index 8c4d947fb848..a337f7afc3b9 100644
> --- a/drivers/edac/edac_device.c
> +++ b/drivers/edac/edac_device.c
> @@ -75,7 +75,6 @@ struct edac_device_ctl_info *edac_device_alloc_ctl_info(
>  	 * provide if we could simply hardcode everything into a single struct.
>  	 */
>  	p = NULL;
> -	dev_ctl = edac_align_ptr(&p, sizeof(*dev_ctl), 1);

Are you absolutely sure this function doesn't have any side-effects,
say, to &p and removing the call would break the pointer offsets for the
one-shot allocation?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette