On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Andrey Ryabinin
<aryabinin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/25/2017 10:17 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Alexander Potapenko <glider@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>> diff --git a/mm/kasan/report.c b/mm/kasan/report.c
>>>> index 04bb1d3eb9ec..28fb222ab149 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/kasan/report.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/kasan/report.c
>>>> @@ -111,6 +111,9 @@ static const char *get_wild_bug_type(struct kasan_access_info *info)
>>>> {
>>>> const char *bug_type = "unknown-crash";
>>>>
>>>> + /* shut up spurious -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning */
>>>> + info->first_bad_addr = (void *)(-1ul);
>>>> +
>>> Why don't we initialize info.first_bad_addr in kasan_report(), where
>>> info is allocated?
>>
>> I'm just trying to shut up a particular warning here where gcc can't figure out
>> by itself that it is initialized. Setting an invalid address at
>> allocation time would
>> prevent gcc from warning even for any trivial bug where we use the incorrect
>> value in the normal code path, in case someone later wants to modify the
>> code further and makes a mistake.
>>
>
> 'info->first_bad_addr' could be initialized to the correct value. That would be 'addr' itself
> for 'wild' type of bugs.
> Initialization in get_wild_bug_type() looks a bit odd and off-place.
Yes, that makes sense. I'll send a new version then.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
