linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] driver core: Explicitly initialize struct member @data.have_async in __device

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: <Zsiw_cUgoXEcY7io@google.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 08:55:41 -0700
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: Zijun Hu <zijun_hu@...oud.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] driver core: Explicitly initialize struct member
 @data.have_async in __device_attach()

On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 08:00:14PM +0800, Zijun Hu wrote:
> From: Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@...cinc.com>
> 
> __device_attach() relies on compiler to implicitly initialize struct
> member @data.have_async to avoid the member is used before initialization
> but readers may not understand that, solved by explicitly initializing
> @data.have_async as well as existing @data.want_async.

I do not believe this is needed. We require kernel developers be
familiar with the language of choice for the kernel.

We have a ton of partial or empty structure initializers in the kernel.
If we count only empty non-static ones I see:

dtor@...r-ws:~/kernel/work $ git grep '= \?{ \?};' | grep -v static | wc -l
5707

Rough count of partial initializers is (might be over eager and some
of them could be full ones, on the other hand it does not count
initializers that span multiple lines and start with opening brace
only):

dtor@...r-ws:~/kernel/work $ git grep '= \?{ \..* };' | grep -v static | wc -l
1150

Are you planning to go through all of them and add complete
initializers? And keep adjusting them when structures will get extended?
For what gain?

There was no readers confusion, you wrote a tool for C static analysis
that did not follow C standard and gave you a false warning. Please fix
your tool instead.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@...cinc.com>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Remove both fix and stable tag
> - Correct both title and commit messages
> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240823-fix_have_async-v1-1-43a354b6614b@quicinc.com
> ---
>  drivers/base/dd.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/base/dd.c b/drivers/base/dd.c
> index 9b745ba54de1..b0c44b0846aa 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/dd.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/dd.c
> @@ -1021,6 +1021,7 @@ static int __device_attach(struct device *dev, bool allow_async)
>  			.dev = dev,
>  			.check_async = allow_async,
>  			.want_async = false,
> +			.have_async = false,
>  		};
>  
>  		if (dev->parent)
> 
> ---
> base-commit: 87ee9981d1f86ee9b1623a46c7f9e4ac24461fe4
> change-id: 20240823-fix_have_async-3a135618d91b
> 
> Best regards,
> -- 
> Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@...cinc.com>
> 

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry