On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:07:40 +0100,
Aiswarya Cyriac wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 12:30:19 +0100,
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 09:08:26AM +0000, Aiswarya Cyriac wrote:
> >> > Hi Michael,
> >> >
> >> > Thank you for reviewing. I have updated my response inline
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 09:51:30AM +0100, Aiswarya Cyriac wrote:
> >> > >> Fix the following warning when building virtio_snd driver.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> "
> >> > >> *** CID 1583619: Uninitialized variables (UNINIT)
> >> > >> sound/virtio/virtio_kctl.c:294 in virtsnd_kctl_tlv_op()
> >> > >> 288
> >> > >> 289 break;
> >> > >> 290 }
> >> > >> 291
> >> > >> 292 kfree(tlv);
> >> > >> 293
> >> > >> vvv CID 1583619: Uninitialized variables (UNINIT)
> >> > >> vvv Using uninitialized value "rc".
> >> > >> 294 return rc;
> >> > >> 295 }
> >> > >> 296
> >> > >> 297 /**
> >> > >> 298 * virtsnd_kctl_get_enum_items() - Query items for the ENUMERATED element type.
> >> > >> 299 * @snd: VirtIO sound device.
> >> > >> "
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Signed-off-by: Anton Yakovlev <anton.yakovlev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > >> Signed-off-by: Aiswarya Cyriac <aiswarya.cyriac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > >> Reported-by: coverity-bot <keescook+coverity-bot@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > >> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1583619 ("Uninitialized variables")
> >> > >> Fixes: d6568e3de42d ("ALSA: virtio: add support for audio controls")
> >> >
> >> > >I don't know enough about ALSA to say whether the patch is correct. But
> >> > >the commit log needs work: please, do not "fix warnings" - analyse the
> >> > >code and explain whether there is a real issue and if yes what is it
> >> > >and how it can trigger. Is an invalid op_flag ever passed?
> >> > >If it's just a coverity false positive it might be ok to
> >> > >work around that but document this.
> >> >
> >> > This warning is caused by the absence of the "default" branch in the
> >> > switch-block, and is a false positive because the kernel calls
> >> > virtsnd_kctl_tlv_op() only with values for op_flag processed in
> >> > this block.
> >>
> >> Well we don't normally have functions validate inputs.
> >> In this case I am not really sure we should bother
> >> with adding dead code. If you really want to, add BUG_ON.
>
> > Please don't use BUG_ON() in such a case...
> > There is no reason to break the whole operation.
>
> How about adding a WARN_ON() on default case?
That's better :)
thanks,
Takashi
