linmiaohe <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> When get user eoi value failed, var val would be uninitialized and result
> in calculating pending eoi from an uninitialized val. Initialize var val
> to 0 to fix this case.
Let me try to suggest an alternative wording,
"When pv_eoi_get_user() fails, 'val' may remain uninitialized and the
return value of pv_eoi_get_pending() becomes random. Fix the issue by
initializing the variable."
>
> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> index 4f14ec7525f6..7e77e94f3176 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> @@ -626,7 +626,7 @@ static inline bool pv_eoi_enabled(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>
> static bool pv_eoi_get_pending(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> - u8 val;
> + u8 val = 0;
> if (pv_eoi_get_user(vcpu, &val) < 0)
> printk(KERN_WARNING "Can't read EOI MSR value: 0x%llx\n",
> (unsigned long long)vcpu->arch.pv_eoi.msr_val);
Reviewed-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx>
But why compilers don't complain?
--
Vitaly
