Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 7 Jun 2021 11:23:22 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc:     Wenli Looi <wlooi@ucalgary.ca>, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: Fix uninitialized variable
Message-ID: <YL3lih8OqGOLjVBf@kroah.com>
References: <20210606070021.116284-1-wlooi@ucalgary.ca>
 <20210607083316.GO1955@kadam>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210607083316.GO1955@kadam>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 11:33:17AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Greg asked about struct holes and the answer is "= {}" will zero out
> struct holes but it's not important in this case.  The "= {}" is a GCC
> extension for zeroing structs and it's not part of the C standard.
> The struct has a kernel pointer in it so we had better not be shairing
> it to user space.

I thought we proved that "= {}" will _NOT_ zero out holes in structures.
Or did we really prove that?  I can't remember now, do you?

thanks,

greg k-h