* [PATCH] rxrpc: fix uninitialized variable use
@ 2016-06-17 9:55 Arnd Bergmann
2016-06-21 8:48 ` David Howells
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2016-06-17 9:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Howells; +Cc: Arnd Bergmann, David S. Miller, netdev, linux-kernel
Hashing the peer key was introduced for AF_INET, but gcc
warns about the rxrpc_peer_hash_key function returning uninitialized
data for any other value of srx->transport.family:
net/rxrpc/peer_object.c: In function 'rxrpc_peer_hash_key':
net/rxrpc/peer_object.c:57:15: error: 'p' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
Assuming that nothing else can be set here, this changes the
function to just return zero in case of an unknown address
family.
Fixes: be6e6707f6ee ("rxrpc: Rework peer object handling to use hash table and RCU")
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
This showed up today in linux-next, no idea if my patch is the
right solution for the problem, so please review carefully.
net/rxrpc/peer_object.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/net/rxrpc/peer_object.c b/net/rxrpc/peer_object.c
index faf222c21698..5ab89295c36c 100644
--- a/net/rxrpc/peer_object.c
+++ b/net/rxrpc/peer_object.c
@@ -50,6 +50,8 @@ static unsigned long rxrpc_peer_hash_key(struct rxrpc_local *local,
size = sizeof(srx->transport.sin.sin_addr);
p = (u16 *)&srx->transport.sin.sin_addr;
break;
+ default:
+ return 0;
}
/* Step through the peer address in 16-bit portions for speed */
--
2.9.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rxrpc: fix uninitialized variable use
2016-06-17 9:55 [PATCH] rxrpc: fix uninitialized variable use Arnd Bergmann
@ 2016-06-21 8:48 ` David Howells
2016-06-21 9:28 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-06-21 10:05 ` David Howells
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: David Howells @ 2016-06-21 8:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnd Bergmann; +Cc: dhowells, David S. Miller, netdev, linux-kernel
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> Hashing the peer key was introduced for AF_INET, but gcc
> warns about the rxrpc_peer_hash_key function returning uninitialized
> data for any other value of srx->transport.family:
>
> net/rxrpc/peer_object.c: In function 'rxrpc_peer_hash_key':
> net/rxrpc/peer_object.c:57:15: error: 'p' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
>
> Assuming that nothing else can be set here, this changes the
> function to just return zero in case of an unknown address
> family.
I'm actually more tempted to put a BUG() in there because if any new family
support (say AF_INET6) is added, I want to make sure I catch all the places.
David
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rxrpc: fix uninitialized variable use
2016-06-21 8:48 ` David Howells
@ 2016-06-21 9:28 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-06-21 10:05 ` David Howells
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2016-06-21 9:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Howells; +Cc: David S. Miller, netdev, linux-kernel
On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 9:48:52 AM CEST David Howells wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> > Hashing the peer key was introduced for AF_INET, but gcc
> > warns about the rxrpc_peer_hash_key function returning uninitialized
> > data for any other value of srx->transport.family:
> >
> > net/rxrpc/peer_object.c: In function 'rxrpc_peer_hash_key':
> > net/rxrpc/peer_object.c:57:15: error: 'p' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> >
> > Assuming that nothing else can be set here, this changes the
> > function to just return zero in case of an unknown address
> > family.
>
> I'm actually more tempted to put a BUG() in there because if any new family
> support (say AF_INET6) is added, I want to make sure I catch all the places.
Makes sense. Do you want to do the patch yourself, or should I send
a new one doing that?
Maybe WARN() would be better than BUG()? That would still get the attention
it needs but not kill the process.
Arnd
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rxrpc: fix uninitialized variable use
2016-06-21 8:48 ` David Howells
2016-06-21 9:28 ` Arnd Bergmann
@ 2016-06-21 10:05 ` David Howells
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: David Howells @ 2016-06-21 10:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnd Bergmann; +Cc: dhowells, David S. Miller, netdev, linux-kernel
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > I'm actually more tempted to put a BUG() in there because if any new family
> > support (say AF_INET6) is added, I want to make sure I catch all the places.
>
> Makes sense. Do you want to do the patch yourself, or should I send
> a new one doing that?
>
> Maybe WARN() would be better than BUG()? That would still get the attention
> it needs but not kill the process.
I can stick a WARN() into your patch.
David
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-06-21 10:06 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-06-17 9:55 [PATCH] rxrpc: fix uninitialized variable use Arnd Bergmann
2016-06-21 8:48 ` David Howells
2016-06-21 9:28 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-06-21 10:05 ` David Howells
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.