linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ipc: Remove dead code in perform_atomic

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]

Message-ID: <3e686290-14e4-a4e9-3825-afb011b8c0e4@linux.dev>
Date:   Wed, 25 May 2022 07:20:40 +0300
From:   Vasily Averin <vasily.averin@...ux.dev>
To:     Gautam Menghani <gautammenghani201@...il.com>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shakeelb@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com,
        manfred@...orfullife.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        skhan@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipc: Remove dead code in perform_atomic_semop()

On 5/25/22 02:12, vasily.averin@...ux.dev wrote:
> On 5/24/22 21:22, Gautam Menghani wrote:
>> Remove the line which is dead code. Fixes the clang scan warning:
>> warning: Value stored to 'result' is never read [deadcode.DeadStores]
>>                 result = curr->semval;
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gautam Menghani <gautammenghani201@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  ipc/sem.c | 1 -
>>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
>> index 0dbdb98fdf2d..156824bcda47 100644
>> --- a/ipc/sem.c
>> +++ b/ipc/sem.c
>> @@ -766,7 +766,6 @@ static int perform_atomic_semop(struct sem_array *sma, struct sem_queue *q)
>>  	for (sop = sops; sop < sops + nsops; sop++) {
>>  		curr = &sma->sems[sop->sem_num];
>>  		sem_op = sop->sem_op;
>> -		result = curr->semval;
>>  
>>  		if (sop->sem_flg & SEM_UNDO) {
>>  			int undo = un->semadj[sop->sem_num] - sem_op;
> 
> Perhaps it would be better to keep the "result" but use it in the
> marked line below, like it was done in previous part of this function?

Sorry, I was wrong.
Reviewed-by: Vasily Averin <vvs@...nvz.org>