From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: nfnetlink_log: work around uninitialized variable warning Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:17:42 +0100 Message-ID: <20151111131742.GA6079@salvia> References: <17817903.Md6b3ydRpX@wuerfel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Patrick McHardy , Jozsef Kadlecsik , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Ken-ichirou MATSUZAWA , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org To: Arnd Bergmann Return-path: Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:53689 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752122AbbKKNRq (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Nov 2015 08:17:46 -0500 Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (antivirus1.int [192.168.2.11]) by mail.us.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 987681392C2 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:17:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id 838114EE81 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:17:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id 675F04EE8C for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:17:43 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17817903.Md6b3ydRpX@wuerfel> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 01:08:15PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > After a recent (correct) change, gcc started warning about the use > of the 'flags' variable in nfulnl_recv_config() > > net/netfilter/nfnetlink_log.c: In function 'nfulnl_recv_config': > net/netfilter/nfnetlink_log.c:320:14: warning: 'flags' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] > net/netfilter/nfnetlink_log.c:828:6: note: 'flags' was declared here > > The warning first shows up in ARM s3c2410_defconfig with gcc-4.3 or > higher (including 5.2.1, which is the latest version I checked) I > tried working around it by rearranging the code but had no success > with that. > > As a last resort, this initializes the variable to zero, which shuts > up the warning, but means that we don't get a warning if the code > is ever changed in a way that actually causes the variable to be > used without first being written. Applied, thanks!