On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 2:34 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 12:34 PM Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Seems like a gcc bug? But I don't have a decent recent gcc to hand
> > to submit a proper report, hope someone else can shed light on it.
>
> I don't have a _very_ recent gcc either [..]
Well, that was quick. Yup, it's considered a gcc bug.
Sadly, it's just a different version of a really old bug:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
which goes back to 2004.
Which I guess means we should not expect this to be fixed in gcc any time soon.
The *good* news (I guess) is that if we have other situations with
that pattern, and that lack of warning, it really is because gcc will
have generated code as if it was initialized (to the value that we
tested it must have been in the one basic block where it *was*
initialized).
So it won't leak random kernel data, and with the common error
condition case (like in this example - checking that we didn't have an
error) it will actually end up doing the right thing.
Entirely by mistake, and without a warniing, but still.. It could have
been much worse. Basically at least for this pattern, "lack of
warning" ends up meaning "it got initialized to the expected value".
Of course, that's just gcc. I have no idea what llvm ends up doing.
Linus
