On 08/01/2017 03:35 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Gary R Hook <gary.hook@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 07/31/2017 03:49 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
The added support for version 5 CCPs introduced a false-positive
warning in the RSA implementation:
drivers/crypto/ccp/ccp-ops.c: In function 'ccp_run_rsa_cmd':
drivers/crypto/ccp/ccp-ops.c:1856:3: error: 'sb_count' may be used
uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
This changes the code in a way that should make it easier for
the compiler to track the state of the sb_count variable, and
avoid the warning.
Fixes: 6ba46c7d4d7e ("crypto: ccp - Fix base RSA function for version 5
CCPs")
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/crypto/ccp/ccp-ops.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/crypto/ccp/ccp-ops.c b/drivers/crypto/ccp/ccp-ops.c
index 40c062ad8726..a8bc207b099a 100644
--- a/drivers/crypto/ccp/ccp-ops.c
+++ b/drivers/crypto/ccp/ccp-ops.c
@@ -1758,6 +1758,7 @@ static int ccp_run_rsa_cmd(struct ccp_cmd_queue
*cmd_q, struct ccp_cmd *cmd)
o_len = 32 * ((rsa->key_size + 255) / 256);
i_len = o_len * 2;
+ sb_count = 0;
if (cmd_q->ccp->vdata->version < CCP_VERSION(5, 0)) {
/* sb_count is the number of storage block slots required
* for the modulus.
@@ -1852,7 +1853,7 @@ static int ccp_run_rsa_cmd(struct ccp_cmd_queue
*cmd_q, struct ccp_cmd *cmd)
ccp_dm_free(&exp);
e_sb:
- if (cmd_q->ccp->vdata->version < CCP_VERSION(5, 0))
+ if (sb_count)
cmd_q->ccp->vdata->perform->sbfree(cmd_q, op.sb_key,
sb_count);
return ret;
This is a fine solution. However, having lived with this annoyance for a
while, and even hoping that a
a later compiler fixes it, I would have preferred to either:
1) Initialize the local variable at declaration time, or
I try to never do that in general, see https://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=232
I know. I just globally disagree with a global decision of this sort.
Now I make errors that are more complex, partially because I've shot myself
in the foot repeatedly, and learned from it.
Nonetheless...
I will ack your suggested patch. Thank you for addressing this. I've learned
something.
