From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753502AbcHALux (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 1 Aug 2016 07:50:53 -0400
Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]:37346 "EHLO
	mail-wm0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753475AbcHALup (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 1 Aug 2016 07:50:45 -0400
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 12:50:41 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
To: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
Cc: "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/efi: initialize status to ensure garbage is not
 returned on small size
Message-ID: <20160801115041.GD3636@codeblueprint.co.uk>
References: <1469009466-19980-1-git-send-email-colin.king@canonical.com>
 <20160727143813.GG31759@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <ada10a97-f3d3-91af-51b8-6d2f973c95a1@canonical.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ada10a97-f3d3-91af-51b8-6d2f973c95a1@canonical.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24+41 (02bc14ed1569) (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 27 Jul, at 03:50:16PM, Colin Ian King wrote:
> 
> I'd rather put extra guarding in rather than getting some potential
> garbage return from the stack, but I am playing it rather conservatively
> here.

I think that's sensible, I just wanted to confirm your rationale.

Thanks, applied.