On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 12:54:52PM -0600, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> On 2/11/25 07:13, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 11:08:27PM -0500, Ethan Carter Edwards wrote:
> >> There is a possibility for an uninitialized *ret* variable to be
> >> returned in some code paths.
> >>
> >> Setting to 0 prevents a random value from being returned.
> >
> > That'll shut up the warning but is the warning trying to tell us that
> > there's a logic bug somewhere in the function and we're for example
> > forgetting to look at a return value in some path in the function?
>
> The problematic code is this:
>
> for_each_rtd_codec_dais(rtd, i, codec_dai) {
> if (strstr(codec_dai->component->name_prefix, "-1"))
> ret = snd_soc_dapm_add_routes(&card->dapm, rt_amp_map, 2);
> else if (strstr(codec_dai->component->name_prefix, "-2"))
> ret = snd_soc_dapm_add_routes(&card->dapm, rt_amp_map + 2, 2);
> }
>
> return ret;
>
> I am not sure if it's possible that either the for_each does nothing or that
> the two branches are skipped, but certainly initializing the 'ret' value
> makes sense to me.
>
> Bard, Shuming, what do you think?
I'm just skimming through patchwork and this patch doesn't seem to have
made any progress. What're next steps?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
