netdev - Re: [PATCH 00/17] ATM fixes for pppoatm/br2684

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]

Date:	Sat, 01 Dec 2012 21:17:28 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	chas@....nrl.navy.mil
Cc:	dwmw2@...radead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, krzysiek@...lesie.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/17] ATM fixes for pppoatm/br2684

From: "Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR)" <chas@....nrl.navy.mil>
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 20:57:35 -0500

> In message <1354382493.21562.347.camel@...nybook.infradead.org>,David Woodhouse writes:
>>Possibly not even a bug at all, in fact =E2=80=94 GCC is fairly loose with =
>>those
>>warnings. But if it is a bug it's my fault. I'll take a look at that
>>too. Not tonight though; I'm going out shortly and will only just manage
>>the solos-pci fix.
> 
> it is not a bug, just gcc being pedantic.  gcc doesn't believe
> that passing by reference it a form of initilization.

It's not that, it actually is analyzing the initializations done by
that function call during inlining.

What it can't see is the case where multiple flows of control have
different treatments of a variable.

It can't see that, for example, all paths that test boolean X do not
touch the uninitialized variable.  It doesn't analyze the
inter-dependencies of each code path in enough detail to know for
certain.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html