On 11/15/2010 09:12 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Le dimanche 14 novembre 2010 Ã 18:06 -0800, Andrew Morton a Ãcrit : >> On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:25:33 +0300 Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> if (timeval) { >>> - rtv.tv_sec = rts.tv_sec; >>> - rtv.tv_usec = rts.tv_nsec / NSEC_PER_USEC; >>> + struct timeval rtv = { >>> + .tv_sec = rts.tv_sec, >>> + .tv_usec = rts.tv_nsec / NSEC_PER_USEC >>> + }; >>> >>> if (!copy_to_user(p, &rtv, sizeof(rtv))) >>> return ret; >> >> Please check the assembly code - this will still leave four bytes of >> uninitalised stack data in 'rtv', surely. > > Thats a good question. > > In my understanding, gcc should initialize all holes (and other not > mentioned fields) with 0, even for automatic storage [C99 only mandates > this on static storage] > > I tested on x86_64 and this is the case, but could not find a definitive > answer in gcc documentation. > > This kind of construct is widely used in networking tree. > > Maybe we should ask to gcc experts if this behavior is guaranteed by > gcc, or if we must review our code ;( > > CC Jakub > > Thanks ! > This is what I thought too. If it is not there are tones of bugs I wrote of code that relays on this behaviour. It would be interesting to know for sure Thanks Boaz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html