Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:34:21 -0800 (PST)
From:   Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
cc:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Matej Kupljen <matej.kupljen@gmail.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tmpfs: fix uninitialized return value in shmem_link
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgO3MPjPpf_ARyW6zpwwPZtxXYQgMLbmj2bnbOLnR+6Cg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.11.1902251214220.8973@eggly.anvils>
References: <20190221222123.GC6474@magnolia> <alpine.LSU.2.11.1902222222570.1594@eggly.anvils> <CAHk-=wgO3MPjPpf_ARyW6zpwwPZtxXYQgMLbmj2bnbOLnR+6Cg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LSU 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 10:35 PM Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > When we made the shmem_reserve_inode call in shmem_link conditional, we
> > forgot to update the declaration for ret so that it always has a known
> > value.  Dan Carpenter pointed out this deficiency in the original patch.
> 
> Applied.

Thanks.  And I apologize for letting that slip through: Darrick sent
the patch fragment, I dressed it up, and more or less tricked him into
taking ownership of the bug, when it's I who should have been more careful.

But I'm glad it confirmed your rc8 instinct, rather than messing final :)

> 
> Side note: how come gcc didn't warn about this? Yes, we disable that
> warning for some cases because of lots of false positives, but I
> thought the *default* setup still had it.

I thought so too, and have been puzzled by it.  If I try removing the
initialization of inode from the next function, shmem_unlink(), I do
get the expected warning for that.

> 
> Is it just that the goto ends up confusing gcc enough that it never notices?

Since the goto route did have ret properly initialized, I don't see
why it might have been confusing, but what do I know...

I thought it might be because outside the goto route, ret was used
for nothing but the return value.  But that's disproved: I tried a
very silly "inode->i_flags = ret;" just after d_instantiate(),
and still no warning when ret is uninitialized.

Seems like a gcc bug? But I don't have a decent recent gcc to hand
to submit a proper report, hope someone else can shed light on it.

Hugh