Re: [PATCH] percpu: initialize best_upa variable

[Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>]

Hello,

On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 02:39:21PM +0000, Dennis Zhou wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 06:17:47AM -0700, Tom Rix wrote:
> > 
> > On 5/16/21 7:05 PM, Dennis Zhou wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 11:08:17AM -0700, trix@redhat.com wrote:
> > > > From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Static analysis reports this problem
> > > > percpu.c:2945:6: warning: Assigned value is garbage or undefined
> > > >          upa = best_upa;
> > > >              ^ ~~~~~~~~
> > > > best_upa may not be set, so initialize it.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >   mm/percpu.c | 1 +
> > > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c
> > > > index a257c3efdf18b..6578b706fae81 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/percpu.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/percpu.c
> > > > @@ -2916,6 +2916,7 @@ static struct pcpu_alloc_info * __init __flatten pcpu_build_alloc_info(
> > > >   	 * Related to atom_size, which could be much larger than the unit_size.
> > > >   	 */
> > > >   	last_allocs = INT_MAX;
> > > > +	best_upa = max_upa;
> > > >   	for (upa = max_upa; upa; upa--) {
> > > >   		int allocs = 0, wasted = 0;
> > > > -- 
> > > > 2.26.3
> > > > 
> > > I think the proper fix would be:
> > > 
> > > best_upa = 0;
> > 
> > I was looking for initializing with something that would work.
> > 
> 
> I think I prefer setting it to 0 because it forces the loop to have
> succeeded vs being able to bypass it if the for loop logic was changed.
> 
> > > for (...) { }
> > > BUG_ON(!best_upa);
> > WARN_ON instead?
> 
> This is initialization code. So if upa == 0, it really is a problem.
> Having 0 units per allocation is bogus.
> 
> > > upa = best_upa;
> > > 
> > > If you're fine with this I'll make the changes and apply it to
> > > for-5.13-fixes.
> > > 
> > > Can you also tell me what static analysis tool produced this? I'm just a
> > > little curious because this code hasn't changed in several years so I'd
> > > have expected some static analyzer to have caught this by now.
> > 
> > Clang 10
> > 
> > Tom
> > 
> 
> Thanks,
> Dennis

Following up here. Are you find with me making the changes and
attributing it to you? Otherwise I can just spin another patch real
quick.

At this point I've already sent my PR for-5.13-fixes. So I'll queue some
fix for-5.14.
 
Thanks,
Dennis