Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v2] kasan: avoid -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20170721210251.3378996-1-arnd@arndb.de>
 <CAG_fn=UzULc1oRfF5BVHXgfKOC6eoGuwwT1cJ9oHJO7hCNzscQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a0prDzKW=yoosY0oPQagDkfpmKy7jny6CUaA9Xi_U0e4A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>
Message-ID: <b56efb52-2458-4d2d-f9d9-4bb2907e52dc@virtuozzo.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:06:18 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a0prDzKW=yoosY0oPQagDkfpmKy7jny6CUaA9Xi_U0e4A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jul 2017 12:03:53.2729 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1PR08MB2832
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1288
Lines: 29

On 07/25/2017 10:17 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> 
>>> diff --git a/mm/kasan/report.c b/mm/kasan/report.c
>>> index 04bb1d3eb9ec..28fb222ab149 100644
>>> --- a/mm/kasan/report.c
>>> +++ b/mm/kasan/report.c
>>> @@ -111,6 +111,9 @@ static const char *get_wild_bug_type(struct kasan_access_info *info)
>>>  {
>>>         const char *bug_type = "unknown-crash";
>>>
>>> +       /* shut up spurious -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning */
>>> +       info->first_bad_addr = (void *)(-1ul);
>>> +
>> Why don't we initialize info.first_bad_addr in kasan_report(), where
>> info is allocated?
> 
> I'm just trying to shut up a particular warning here where gcc can't figure out
> by itself that it is initialized. Setting an invalid address at
> allocation time would
> prevent gcc from warning even for any trivial bug where we use the incorrect
> value in the normal code path, in case someone later wants to modify the
> code further and makes a mistake.
> 

'info->first_bad_addr' could be initialized to the correct value. That would be 'addr' itself
for 'wild' type of bugs.
Initialization in get_wild_bug_type() looks a bit odd and off-place.