lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Dec]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mac80211: initialize variable have_higher_than_11mbit
From
Date

On 12/28/21 10:55 AM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 6:01 AM Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/23/21 12:30 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 8:29 AM <trix@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
>>>>
>>>> Clang static analysis reports this warnings
>>>>
>>>> mlme.c:5332:7: warning: Branch condition evaluates to a
>>>> garbage value
>>>> have_higher_than_11mbit)
>>>> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>
>>>> have_higher_than_11mbit is only set to true some of the time in
>>>> ieee80211_get_rates() but is checked all of the time. So
>>>> have_higher_than_11mbit needs to be initialized to false.
>>> LGTM. There's only one caller of ieee80211_get_rates() today; if there
>>> were others, they could make a similar mistake in the future. An
>>> alternate approach: ieee80211_get_rates() could unconditionally write
>>> false before the loop that could later write true. Then call sites
>>> don't need to worry about this conditional assignment. Perhaps that
>>> would be preferable? If not:
>> The have_higher_than_11mbit variable had previously be initialized to false.
>>
>> The commit 5d6a1b069b7f moved the variable without initializing.
> I'm not disagreeing with that.
>
> My point is that these sometimes uninitialized warnings you're
> finding+fixing with clang static analyzer are demonstrating a
> recurring pattern with code.
>
> When _not_ using the static analyzer, -Wuninitialized and
> -Wsometimes-uninitialized work in Clang by building a control flow
> graph, but they only analyze a function locally.
>
> For example, consider the following code:
> ```
> _Bool is_thursday(void);
> void hello(int);
>
> void init (int* x) {
> if (is_thursday())
> *x = 1;
> }
>
> void foo (void) {
> int x;
> init(&x);
> hello(x);
> }
> ```
> (Clang+GCC today will warn on the above; x is considered to "escape"
> the scope of foo as init could write the address of x to a global.
> Instead clang's static analyzer will take the additional time to
> analyze the callee. But here's a spooky question: what happens when
> init is in another translation unit? IIRC, the static analyzer doesn't
> do cross TU analysis; I could be wrong though, I haven't run it in a
> while.)
>
> My point is that you're sending patches initializing x, when I think
> it might be nicer to instead have functions like init always write a
> value (unconditionally, rather than conditionally). That way other
> callers of init don't have to worry about sometimes initialized
> variables.

The variable is passed to only to the static function ieee80211_get_rates().

Tom

>
>> Tom
>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
>>>
>>>> Fixes: 5d6a1b069b7f ("mac80211: set basic rates earlier")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> net/mac80211/mlme.c | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/net/mac80211/mlme.c b/net/mac80211/mlme.c
>>>> index 51f55c4ee3c6e..766cbbc9c3a72 100644
>>>> --- a/net/mac80211/mlme.c
>>>> +++ b/net/mac80211/mlme.c
>>>> @@ -5279,7 +5279,7 @@ static int ieee80211_prep_connection(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
>>>> */
>>>> if (new_sta) {
>>>> u32 rates = 0, basic_rates = 0;
>>>> - bool have_higher_than_11mbit;
>>>> + bool have_higher_than_11mbit = false;
>>>> int min_rate = INT_MAX, min_rate_index = -1;
>>>> const struct cfg80211_bss_ies *ies;
>>>> int shift = ieee80211_vif_get_shift(&sdata->vif);
>>>> --
>>>> 2.26.3
>>>>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-12-29 20:26    [W:0.693 / U:0.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site