On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 01:38:48AM -0400, Deming Wang wrote:
> The variable is initialized but it is only used after its assignment.
>
> Signed-off-by: Deming Wang <wangdeming@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c b/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c
> index 4d8d4f16c..bffe74d44 100644
> --- a/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c
> @@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ static int send_forget_request(struct virtio_fs_vq *fsvq,
> {
> struct scatterlist sg;
> struct virtqueue *vq;
> - int ret = 0;
> + int ret;
> bool notify;
> struct virtio_fs_forget_req *req = &forget->req;
>
That causes an uninitialized access in the source tree I'm looking at
(c5e4d5e99162ba8025d58a3af7ad103f155d2df7):
static int send_forget_request(struct virtio_fs_vq *fsvq,
struct virtio_fs_forget *forget,
bool in_flight)
{
struct scatterlist sg;
struct virtqueue *vq;
int ret = 0;
^^^^^^^
bool notify;
struct virtio_fs_forget_req *req = &forget->req;
spin_lock(&fsvq->lock);
if (!fsvq->connected) {
if (in_flight)
dec_in_flight_req(fsvq);
kfree(forget);
goto out;
...
out:
spin_unlock(&fsvq->lock);
return ret;
^^^
}
What is the purpose of this patch? Is there a compiler warning (if so,
which compiler and version)? Do you have a static analysis tool that
reported this (if yes, then maybe it's broken)?
Stefan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
