Re: [PATCH] drm/edid: Fix uninitialized variable in drm_cvt_modes()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:55 PM Lyude Paul <lyude@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Noticed this when trying to compile with -Wall on a kernel fork. We potentially
> don't set width here, which causes the compiler to complain about width
> potentially being uninitialized in drm_cvt_modes(). So, let's fix that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v5.9+
> Fixes: 3f649ab728cd ("treewide: Remove uninitialized_var() usage")
> Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c | 8 +++++++-
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
> index 631125b46e04..2da158ffed8e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
> @@ -3094,6 +3094,7 @@ static int drm_cvt_modes(struct drm_connector *connector,
>
>         for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
>                 int width, height;
> +               u8 cvt_aspect_ratio;
>
>                 cvt = &(timing->data.other_data.data.cvt[i]);
>
> @@ -3101,7 +3102,8 @@ static int drm_cvt_modes(struct drm_connector *connector,
>                         continue;
>
>                 height = (cvt->code[0] + ((cvt->code[1] & 0xf0) << 4) + 1) * 2;
> -               switch (cvt->code[1] & 0x0c) {
> +               cvt_aspect_ratio = cvt->code[1] & 0x0c;
> +               switch (cvt_aspect_ratio) {
>                 case 0x00:
>                         width = height * 4 / 3;
>                         break;
> @@ -3114,6 +3116,10 @@ static int drm_cvt_modes(struct drm_connector *connector,
>                 case 0x0c:
>                         width = height * 15 / 9;
>                         break;
> +               default:

What value would cvt->code[1] have such that this gets hit?

Or is this a "compiler is broken, so let's add more code" situation?
If so, perhaps the code added could just be enough to silence the
compiler (unreachable, etc)?

  -ilia
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel



[Index of Archives]     [Linux DRI Users]     [Linux Intel Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux