On Mon, 2024-03-04 at 18:00 +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > Personally, I think a single patch that sets "= {}" for all of them
> > and
> > drop the all the "= 0" or "= NULL" assignments would be the
> > cleanest way
> > to go.
>
> I agree with Kees, set = {} and drop all the "something = 0;" s
Le 02/03/2024 à 02:51, Kees Cook a écrit :
> On Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 12:47:08AM +, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
>> On Wed, 2024-02-28 at 09:21 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> I totally understand. If the "uninitialized" warnings were actually
>>> reliable, I would agree. I look at it this way:
>>>
>>
On Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 12:47:08AM +, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-02-28 at 09:21 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > I totally understand. If the "uninitialized" warnings were actually
> > reliable, I would agree. I look at it this way:
> >
> > - initializations can be missed either in sta
On Wed, 2024-02-28 at 09:21 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> I totally understand. If the "uninitialized" warnings were actually
> reliable, I would agree. I look at it this way:
>
> - initializations can be missed either in static initializers or via
> run time initializers. (So the risk of mistake he
Le 28/02/2024 à 18:01, Edgecombe, Rick P a écrit :
> On Wed, 2024-02-28 at 13:22 +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>> Any preference? Or maybe am I missing your point and talking
>>> nonsense?
>>>
>>
>> So my preference would go to the addition of:
>>
>> info.new_field = 0;
>>
>> But that'
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 01:22:09PM +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> [...]
> My worry with initialisation at declaration is it often hides missing
> assignments. Let's take following simple exemple:
>
> char *colour(int num)
> {
> char *name;
>
> if (num == 0) {
> name =
On Wed, 2024-02-28 at 13:22 +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > Any preference? Or maybe am I missing your point and talking
> > nonsense?
> >
>
> So my preference would go to the addition of:
>
> info.new_field = 0;
>
> But that's very minor and if you think it is easier to manage and
Le 27/02/2024 à 21:25, Edgecombe, Rick P a écrit :
> On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 18:16 +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
Why doing a full init of the struct when all fields are re-
written a few
lines after ?
>>>
>>> It's a nice change for robustness and makes future changes easier.
>>> It'
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 11:09:47AM -0800, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/alpha/kernel/osf_sys.c b/arch/alpha/kernel/osf_sys.c
> index 5db88b627439..dd6801bb9240 100644
> --- a/arch/alpha/kernel/osf_sys.c
> +++ b/arch/alpha/kernel/osf_sys.c
> @@ -1218,7 +1218,7 @@ static unsigned long
>
On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 18:16 +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > > Why doing a full init of the struct when all fields are re-
> > > written a few
> > > lines after ?
> >
> > It's a nice change for robustness and makes future changes easier.
> > It's
> > not actually wasteful since the compiler will
Le 27/02/2024 à 19:07, Kees Cook a écrit :
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 07:02:59AM +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 26/02/2024 à 20:09, Rick Edgecombe a écrit :
>>> Future changes will need to add a field to struct vm_unmapped_area_info.
>>> This would cause trouble for any archs that don'
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 07:02:59AM +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>
> Le 26/02/2024 à 20:09, Rick Edgecombe a écrit :
> > Future changes will need to add a field to struct vm_unmapped_area_info.
> > This would cause trouble for any archs that don't initialize the
> > struct. Currently every use
On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 07:02 +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > It could be possible to initialize the new field for each arch to
> > 0, but
> > instead simply inialize the field with a C99 struct inializing
> > syntax.
>
> Why doing a full init of the struct when all fields are re-written a
> few
Le 26/02/2024 à 20:09, Rick Edgecombe a écrit :
> Future changes will need to add a field to struct vm_unmapped_area_info.
> This would cause trouble for any archs that don't initialize the
> struct. Currently every user sets each field, so if new fields are
> added, the core code parsing the str
14 matches
Mail list logo
