netdev - Re: [patch net-next 0/8] Add support for pipeline debug (dpipe)

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: <20170328075909.GD1873@nanopsycho.orion>
Date:   Tue, 28 Mar 2017 09:59:09 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        arkadis@...lanox.com, idosch@...lanox.com, mlxsw@...lanox.com,
        jhs@...atatu.com, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
        andrew@...n.ch, simon.horman@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 0/8] Add support for pipeline debug (dpipe)

Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 09:57:22AM CEST, jiri@...nulli.us wrote:
>Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 09:42:58AM CEST, ivecera@...hat.com wrote:
>>Dne 28.3.2017 v 09:10 Jiri Pirko napsal(a):
>>> Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:48:34AM CEST, davem@...emloft.net wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > Please fix up these warnings and resubmit:
>>> > 
>>> > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum_router.c: In function ‘mlxsw_sp_rif_counter_free’:
>>> > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum_router.c:208:2: warning: ‘p_counter_index’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>>> >  mlxsw_sp_rif_counter_edit(mlxsw_sp, rif->rif_index,
>>> >  ^
>>> 
>>> This is I believe also gcc bug. Code looks fine. I'm not getting the warning
>>> with gcc 6
>>> 
>>No it is not a gcc bug. The function mlxsw_sp_rif_counter_free() is not
>>static so the compiler cannot know all its callers and so 'dir' parameter can
>>be theoretically anything.
>>You call mlxsw_sp_rif_p_counter_get() there it assumes dir can be only
>>MLXSW_SP_RIF_COUNTER_EGRESS or MLXSW_SP_RIF_COUNTER_INGRESS so initializes
>>*pp_counter_index only for them. For any other value the value is
>>uninitialized.
>
>Interesting, why gcc 6.2.1 is silent then?

Oh, I see that it is not :) My bad, will fix, thanks!