On 3/1/24 16:17, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> Future changes will need to add a new member to struct
> vm_unmapped_area_info. This would cause trouble for any call site that
> doesn't initialize the struct. Currently every caller sets each field
> manually, so if new fields are added they will be unitialized and the core
> code parsing the struct will see garbage in the new field.
>
> It could be possible to initialize the new field manually to 0 at each
> call site. This and a couple other options were discussed, and the
> consensus (see links) was that in general the best way to accomplish this
> would be via static initialization with designated field initiators.
> Having some struct vm_unmapped_area_info instances not zero initialized
> will put those sites at risk of feeding garbage into vm_unmapped_area() if
> the convention is to zero initialize the struct and any new field addition
> misses a call site that initializes each field manually.
>
> It could be possible to leave the code mostly untouched, and just change
> the line:
> struct vm_unmapped_area_info info
> to:
> struct vm_unmapped_area_info info = {};
>
> However, that would leave cleanup for the fields that are manually set
> to zero, as it would no longer be required.
>
> So to be reduce the chance of bugs via uninitialized fields, instead
> simply continue the process to initialize the struct this way tree wide.
> This will zero any unspecified members. Move the field initializers to the
> struct declaration when they are known at that time. Leave the fields out
> that were manually initialized to zero, as this would be redundant for
> designated initializers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Vineet Gupta <vgupta@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-snps-arc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202402280912.33AEE7A9CF@keescook/#t
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/j7bfvig3gew3qruouxrh7z7ehjjafrgkbcmg6tcghhfh3rhmzi@wzlcoecgy5rs/
LGTM.
Acked-by: Vineet Gupta <vgupta@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thx,
-Vineet
