* [PATCH v2] fs/btrfs: Fix uninitialized variable
@ 2021-04-17 15:36 Khaled ROMDHANI
2021-04-19 17:32 ` David Sterba
2021-04-20 10:22 ` Dan Carpenter
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Khaled ROMDHANI @ 2021-04-17 15:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: clm, josef, dsterba
Cc: Khaled ROMDHANI, linux-btrfs, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors
As reported by the Coverity static analysis.
The variable zone is not initialized which
may causes a failed assertion.
Addresses-Coverity: ("Uninitialized variables")
Signed-off-by: Khaled ROMDHANI <khaledromdhani216@gmail.com>
---
v2: add a default case as proposed by David Sterba
---
fs/btrfs/zoned.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
index eeb3ebe11d7a..82527308d165 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
@@ -143,6 +143,9 @@ static inline u32 sb_zone_number(int shift, int mirror)
case 0: zone = 0; break;
case 1: zone = 1ULL << (BTRFS_SB_LOG_FIRST_SHIFT - shift); break;
case 2: zone = 1ULL << (BTRFS_SB_LOG_SECOND_SHIFT - shift); break;
+ default:
+ zone = 0;
+ break;
}
ASSERT(zone <= U32_MAX);
--
2.17.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2] fs/btrfs: Fix uninitialized variable
2021-04-17 15:36 [PATCH v2] fs/btrfs: Fix uninitialized variable Khaled ROMDHANI
@ 2021-04-19 17:32 ` David Sterba
2021-04-20 13:20 ` Khaled Romdhani
2021-04-20 10:22 ` Dan Carpenter
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: David Sterba @ 2021-04-19 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Khaled ROMDHANI
Cc: clm, josef, dsterba, linux-btrfs, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors
On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 04:36:16PM +0100, Khaled ROMDHANI wrote:
> As reported by the Coverity static analysis.
> The variable zone is not initialized which
> may causes a failed assertion.
>
> Addresses-Coverity: ("Uninitialized variables")
> Signed-off-by: Khaled ROMDHANI <khaledromdhani216@gmail.com>
> ---
> v2: add a default case as proposed by David Sterba
> ---
> fs/btrfs/zoned.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> index eeb3ebe11d7a..82527308d165 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> @@ -143,6 +143,9 @@ static inline u32 sb_zone_number(int shift, int mirror)
> case 0: zone = 0; break;
> case 1: zone = 1ULL << (BTRFS_SB_LOG_FIRST_SHIFT - shift); break;
> case 2: zone = 1ULL << (BTRFS_SB_LOG_SECOND_SHIFT - shift); break;
> + default:
> + zone = 0;
Well yeah but this is not a valid case at all, we'd rather catch that as
an assertion failure than letting is silently continue.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2] fs/btrfs: Fix uninitialized variable
2021-04-19 17:32 ` David Sterba
@ 2021-04-20 13:20 ` Khaled Romdhani
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Khaled Romdhani @ 2021-04-20 13:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Sterba, clm, josef
Cc: linux-btrfs, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors, khaledromdhani216
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 07:32:25PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 04:36:16PM +0100, Khaled ROMDHANI wrote:
> > As reported by the Coverity static analysis.
> > The variable zone is not initialized which
> > may causes a failed assertion.
> >
> > Addresses-Coverity: ("Uninitialized variables")
> > Signed-off-by: Khaled ROMDHANI <khaledromdhani216@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > v2: add a default case as proposed by David Sterba
> > ---
> > fs/btrfs/zoned.c | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> > index eeb3ebe11d7a..82527308d165 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> > @@ -143,6 +143,9 @@ static inline u32 sb_zone_number(int shift, int mirror)
> > case 0: zone = 0; break;
> > case 1: zone = 1ULL << (BTRFS_SB_LOG_FIRST_SHIFT - shift); break;
> > case 2: zone = 1ULL << (BTRFS_SB_LOG_SECOND_SHIFT - shift); break;
> > + default:
> > + zone = 0;
>
> Well yeah but this is not a valid case at all, we'd rather catch that as
> an assertion failure than letting is silently continue.
So, as all callers pass valid value. It would be
better to catch that as an assertion failure.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] fs/btrfs: Fix uninitialized variable
2021-04-17 15:36 [PATCH v2] fs/btrfs: Fix uninitialized variable Khaled ROMDHANI
2021-04-19 17:32 ` David Sterba
@ 2021-04-20 10:22 ` Dan Carpenter
2021-04-20 13:39 ` Khaled Romdhani
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2021-04-20 10:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Khaled ROMDHANI
Cc: clm, josef, dsterba, linux-btrfs, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors
On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 04:36:16PM +0100, Khaled ROMDHANI wrote:
> As reported by the Coverity static analysis.
> The variable zone is not initialized which
> may causes a failed assertion.
>
> Addresses-Coverity: ("Uninitialized variables")
> Signed-off-by: Khaled ROMDHANI <khaledromdhani216@gmail.com>
> ---
> v2: add a default case as proposed by David Sterba
> ---
> fs/btrfs/zoned.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> index eeb3ebe11d7a..82527308d165 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> @@ -143,6 +143,9 @@ static inline u32 sb_zone_number(int shift, int mirror)
> case 0: zone = 0; break;
> case 1: zone = 1ULL << (BTRFS_SB_LOG_FIRST_SHIFT - shift); break;
> case 2: zone = 1ULL << (BTRFS_SB_LOG_SECOND_SHIFT - shift); break;
It took me a while to spot these break statements.
> + default:
> + zone = 0;
> + break;
This break needs to be indented one more tab.
> }
>
> ASSERT(zone <= U32_MAX);
regards,
dan carpenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2] fs/btrfs: Fix uninitialized variable
2021-04-20 10:22 ` Dan Carpenter
@ 2021-04-20 13:39 ` Khaled Romdhani
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Khaled Romdhani @ 2021-04-20 13:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Carpenter
Cc: clm, josef, dsterba, linux-btrfs, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors,
khaledromdhani216
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 01:22:14PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 04:36:16PM +0100, Khaled ROMDHANI wrote:
> > As reported by the Coverity static analysis.
> > The variable zone is not initialized which
> > may causes a failed assertion.
> >
> > Addresses-Coverity: ("Uninitialized variables")
> > Signed-off-by: Khaled ROMDHANI <khaledromdhani216@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > v2: add a default case as proposed by David Sterba
> > ---
> > fs/btrfs/zoned.c | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> > index eeb3ebe11d7a..82527308d165 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> > @@ -143,6 +143,9 @@ static inline u32 sb_zone_number(int shift, int mirror)
> > case 0: zone = 0; break;
> > case 1: zone = 1ULL << (BTRFS_SB_LOG_FIRST_SHIFT - shift); break;
> > case 2: zone = 1ULL << (BTRFS_SB_LOG_SECOND_SHIFT - shift); break;
>
> It took me a while to spot these break statements.
>
> > + default:
> > + zone = 0;
> > + break;
>
> This break needs to be indented one more tab.
>
> > }
> >
> > ASSERT(zone <= U32_MAX);
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
Sorry, but I checked the patch using checkpatch.pl
before sending it. Is that blocks some smatch parsing process?
In any cases, I will send a V3.
Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-04-20 13:39 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-04-17 15:36 [PATCH v2] fs/btrfs: Fix uninitialized variable Khaled ROMDHANI
2021-04-19 17:32 ` David Sterba
2021-04-20 13:20 ` Khaled Romdhani
2021-04-20 10:22 ` Dan Carpenter
2021-04-20 13:39 ` Khaled Romdhani
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox