netdev - Re: [PATCH] rxrpc: fix uninitialized variable use

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:	Tue, 21 Jun 2016 11:28:53 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rxrpc: fix uninitialized variable use

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 9:48:52 AM CEST David Howells wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> 
> > Hashing the peer key was introduced for AF_INET, but gcc
> > warns about the rxrpc_peer_hash_key function returning uninitialized
> > data for any other value of srx->transport.family:
> > 
> > net/rxrpc/peer_object.c: In function 'rxrpc_peer_hash_key':
> > net/rxrpc/peer_object.c:57:15: error: 'p' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> > 
> > Assuming that nothing else can be set here, this changes the
> > function to just return zero in case of an unknown address
> > family.
> 
> I'm actually more tempted to put a BUG() in there because if any new family
> support (say AF_INET6) is added, I want to make sure I catch all the places.

Makes sense. Do you want to do the patch yourself, or should I send
a new one doing that?

Maybe WARN() would be better than BUG()? That would still get the attention
it needs but not kill the process.

	Arnd