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: <Y+qZthCMRL1m0p4B@yaz-fattaah>
Date:   Mon, 13 Feb 2023 20:12:38 +0000
From:   Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
To:     Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
Cc:     bp@...en8.de, tony.luck@...el.com, james.morse@....com,
        mchehab@...nel.org, rric@...nel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] EDAC/amd64: remove unneeded call to
 reserve_mc_sibling_devs()

On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 11:15:10AM -0800, Tom Rix wrote:
> cpp_check reports
> drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c:3943:37: error: Uninitialized variable: pci_id1 [uninitvar]
>  ret = reserve_mc_sibling_devs(pvt, pci_id1, pci_id2);
>                                     ^
> drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c:3943:46: error: Uninitialized variable: pci_id2 [uninitvar]
>  ret = reserve_mc_sibling_devs(pvt, pci_id1, pci_id2);
>                                              ^
> The call to reserve_mc_sibling_devs() will not fail because
>   if (pvt->umc)
>     return 0;
> 
> reserve_mc_sibling_devs() is only called by hw_info_get() and pvt->umc is only set
> in hw_info_get(), so with fam >= 0x17, the call to reserver_mc_siblings will
> just return, so the call the call is not needed.  And when that call is moved
> the check for umc is not needed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>
> ---

Link to similar patch from Nathan:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-edac/20230213-amd64_edac-wsometimes-uninitialized-v1-1-5bde32b89e02@kernel.org/

Hi Tom and Nathan,

These errors are encountered when extra warnings are enabled, correct?

I think the following patch would resolve this issue. This is part of a set
that isn't fully applied.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-edac/20230127170419.1824692-12-yazen.ghannam@amd.com/

Boris,
Do you think one of these patches should be applied or just hold off until the
entire original set is applied?

As for myself, I'll start including builds with extra warnings enabled for
each patch in my workflow. Currently I do a regular build for each patch and a
build with extra warnings for the entire set.

Thanks,
Yazen

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ