On Sun, Dec 25, 2005 at 06:34:06PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> NAK. That sort of patches is only going to hide real problems in the
> code where such warnings are _not_ false positives.
>
> Let me put it that way: what bug are you fixing in that patch? Is
> there a codepath that would lead to use of r without initialization?
> If there is - show it; if there is not - why are you patching kernel
> and not gcc?
Well, good point. My only question would be: why are other
"uninitialized" variables masked in the same way in that code?
Also, perhaps the phrasing in SubmittingPatches should be changed.
Currently (for "trivial" patches) it says:
Warning fixes (cluttering with useless warnings is bad)
Is that warning considered "useful"? Should this hint, instead, read:
Warning fixes (make sure the warning is "real", if not, patch gcc)
:)
--
Kees Cook @outflux.net
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
