From: Bob Breuer <breuerr@xxxxxx> Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 16:55:33 -0600 > Would it be safe enough to initialize code to SEGV_MAPERR earlier, or > should vmalloc_fault have a different fault code? Yep, and that's how I'll fix this, thanks! --- sparc32: Fix might-be-used-uninitialized warning in do_sparc_fault(). When we try to handle vmalloc faults, we can take a code path which uses "code" before we actually set it. Amusingly gcc-3.3 notices this yet gcc-4.x does not. Reported-by: Bob Breuer <breuerr@xxxxxx> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- arch/sparc/mm/fault_32.c | 3 +-- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/sparc/mm/fault_32.c b/arch/sparc/mm/fault_32.c index 5b836f5..b10ac4d 100644 --- a/arch/sparc/mm/fault_32.c +++ b/arch/sparc/mm/fault_32.c @@ -240,11 +240,10 @@ asmlinkage void do_sparc_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, int text_fault, int write, * only copy the information from the master page table, * nothing more. */ + code = SEGV_MAPERR; if (!ARCH_SUN4C && address >= TASK_SIZE) goto vmalloc_fault; - code = SEGV_MAPERR; - /* * If we're in an interrupt or have no user * context, we must not take the fault.. -- 1.7.4.1 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
