netdev - Re: [PATCH 19/28] brcmfmac: avoid maybe-uninitialized warning in brcmf_cfg80211_start

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: <3406231.8mt2808XDi@wuerfel>
Date:   Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:57:23 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Hante Meuleman <hante.meuleman@...adcom.com>,
        Franky Lin <franky.lin@...adcom.com>,
        Pieter-Paul Giesberts <pieter-paul.giesberts@...adcom.com>,
        "Franky (Zhenhui) Lin" <frankyl@...adcom.com>,
        Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/28] brcmfmac: avoid maybe-uninitialized warning in brcmf_cfg80211_start_ap

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 9:49:58 AM CEST Kalle Valo wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> writes:
> 
> > A bugfix added a sanity check around the assignment and use of the
> > 'is_11d' variable, which looks correct to me, but as the function is
> > rather complex already, this confuses the compiler to the point where
> > it can no longer figure out if the variable is always initialized
> > correctly:
> >
> > brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c: In function ‘brcmf_cfg80211_start_ap’:
> > brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c:4586:10: error: ‘is_11d’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> >
> > This adds an initialization for the newly introduced case in which
> > the variable should not really be used, in order to make the warning
> > go away.
> >
> > Fixes: b3589dfe0212 ("brcmfmac: ignore 11d configuration errors")
> > Cc: Hante Meuleman <hante.meuleman@...adcom.com>
> > Cc: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
> > Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> 
> Via which tree are you planning to submit this? Should I take it?

I'd prefer if you can take it and forward it along with your other
bugfixes. I'll try to take care of the ones that nobody else
picked up.

	Arnd