On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 09:21:39PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote: > On Wed, 1 Feb 2012, devendra.aaru wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Jesper Juhl <jj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > We declare 'exact' without initializing it and then do: > > > > > > [...] > > > if (strlen(p->cru_driver_name)) > > > exact = 1; > > > > > > if (priority && !exact) > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > If the first 'if' is not true, then the second will test an > > > uninitialized 'exact'. > > > > not needed . as the cru_driver_name will always be present :). > > If that is indeed the case, and we are guaranteed that, then it would seem > that a patch like the following would be what we want instead?? > > Please note that this patch is intended just for discussion, nothing else > (which is why I left out a Signed-off-by on purpose), since I've not > tested it beyond checking that it compiles, nor have I verified your claim > that cru_driver_name will always be present. > We get cru_driver_name from a netlink message that a user sends us. So it depends pretty much on the user whether cru_driver_name is set or not. Usually it is set when a user wants to instantiate a certain algorithm driver, like "cbc(aes-asm)". If the user just wants to instantiate the system default of an algorithm, he can set cru_name (e.g. to "cbc(aes)") instead of cru_driver_name. Your first patch is correct. Thanks, Steffen -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
