From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarod Wilson Subject: Re: [PATCH libmlx5 6/6] fix undefined uuar_index value assignment Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 17:27:34 -0400 Message-ID: <20160727212734.GK36313@redhat.com> References: <1469647047-7544-1-git-send-email-jarod@redhat.com> <1469647047-7544-7-git-send-email-jarod@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1469647047-7544-7-git-send-email-jarod-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Cc: Yishai Hadas List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 03:17:27PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: > In the case of (attr->comp_mask & MLX5_CREATE_QP_EX2_COMP_MASK) being not > true, uuar_index gets set to resp.uuar_index, but nothing ever initializes > resp.uuar_index. > > That said, both this case, and the true case, it looks like uuar_index > never gets assigned to anything but 0. In the true path, resp_ex gets > memset to 0, and then nothing ever sets uuar_index. Not sure what the > intended use was here, but ultimately, uuar_index is always going to be 0 > with this patch (0 or undetermined garbage before). > > Additionally, I'm not sure if the cmd and resp size parameters passed to > ibv_cmd_create_qp_ex() are correct, but they're at least larger than they > might be, which should be fine. I think. But I'm just guessing here. Coverity actually still complains about this version, largely because it thinks that perhaps the comp_mask could change between checks, and thus you could still get an uninitialized resp. I'm reworking this one a bit to solve this in a way that is cleaner. -- Jarod Wilson jarod-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html