On July 3, 2024 3:42:18 AM Su Hui <suhui@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2024/7/2 23:39, Arend Van Spriel wrote:On July 2, 2024 5:29:27 PM Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:On July 2, 2024 3:57:27 PM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 08:24:44PM +0800, Su Hui wrote:brcmf_fil_cmd_int_get() reads the value of 'io_type' and passes it to brcmf_fil_cmd_data_get(). Initialize 'io_type' to avoid garbage value.Since you're going to be resending anyway, please delete the space char from the start of the line. It's weird that brcmf_fil_cmd_data_get() uses the uninitialized data. It looks like it just goes to great lengths to preserve the original data in io_type... So it likely is harmless enough but still a strange and complicated way write a no-op.Not sure if it helps, but I tried to explain the reason in response to patch 0 (cover letter).Would it make more sense to have just one patch? It's the same issue anyway.Yes, but I would solve it in brcmf_fil_* functions (fwil.[ch]).It seems you will send a new patch to solve this issue. And I guess there is no need for me to resend a v2 patchset or just one patch.
I am not entirely sure. If both gcc and clang would warn about using uninitialized data I would be fine with these patches rolled into one.
Regards, Arend
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
