On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:12:21PM +0100, 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.
>
Yeah, this is not clearly defined by C99 I think, but we can still
find some clues in 6.2.6.1, Paragraph 6,
"
When a value is stored in an object of structure or union type,
including in a member object, the bytes of the object representation
that correspond to any padding bytes take unspecified values.
"
So we can't rely on the compiler to initialize the padding bytes
too.
--
Live like a child, think like the god.
--
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
