Re: [PATCH 04/10] rtlwifi: rtl8192cu: Remove uninitialized_var() usage
From: Nick Desaulniers <hidden>
Date: 2020-06-04 20:16:29
Also in:
linux-block, linux-clk, linux-mm, linux-spi, linux-wireless, lkml, netdev
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:32 PM Kees Cook [off-list ref] wrote:
Using uninitialized_var() is dangerous as it papers over real bugs[1] (or can in the future), and suppresses unrelated compiler warnings (e.g. "unused variable"). If the compiler thinks it is uninitialized, either simply initialize the variable or make compiler changes. As a precursor to removing[2] this[3] macro[4], just initialize this variable to NULL, and avoid sending garbage by returning. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200603174714.192027-1-glider@google.com/ (local) [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFw+Vbj0i=1TGqCR5vQkCzWJ0QxK6CernOU6eedsudAixw@mail.gmail.com/ (local) [3] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFwgbgqhbp1fkxvRKEpzyR5J8n1vKT1VZdz9knmPuXhOeg@mail.gmail.com/ (local) [4] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFz2500WfbKXAx8s67wrm9=yVJu65TpLgN_ybYNv0VEOKA@mail.gmail.com/ (local) Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <redacted>
Fixes: dc0313f46664 ("rtlwifi: rtl8192cu: Add routine hw")
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
--- drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8192cu/hw.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8192cu/hw.c b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8192cu/hw.c index f070f25bb735..5b071b70bc08 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8192cu/hw.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8192cu/hw.c@@ -592,7 +592,7 @@ static void _rtl92cu_init_chipn_one_out_ep_priority(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, bool wmm_enable, u8 queue_sel) { - u16 uninitialized_var(value); + u16 value; switch (queue_sel) { case TX_SELE_HQ:@@ -606,7 +606,7 @@ static void _rtl92cu_init_chipn_one_out_ep_priority(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, break; default: WARN_ON(1); /* Shall not reach here! */ - break; + return; } _rtl92c_init_chipn_reg_priority(hw, value, value, value, value, value, value);
Whew! Nothing like passing the same value 6 times! (Other callers do use distinct values though, just curious seeing this instance.) -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers