Re: [linux-safety] [PATCH] taskstats: remove unneeded dead assignment

[Lukas Bulwahn]

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:

> Hi Lukas,
> 
> On 06/11/2020 06:22, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> > make clang-analyzer on x86_64 defconfig caught my attention with:
> > 
> >   kernel/taskstats.c:120:2: warning: Value stored to 'rc' is never read \
> >   [clang-analyzer-deadcode.DeadStores]
> >           rc = 0;
> >           ^
> > 
> > Commit d94a041519f3 ("taskstats: free skb, avoid returns in
> > send_cpu_listeners") made send_cpu_listeners() not return a value and
> > hence, the rc variable remained only to be used within the loop where
> > it is always assigned before read and it does not need any other
> > initialisation.
> > 
> > So, simply remove this unneeded dead initializing assignment.
> 
> Might be better to remove 'rc' completely as it is only used for the if
> condition now.
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/taskstats.c b/kernel/taskstats.c
> index a2802b6ff4bb..63541f1ae04a 100644
> --- a/kernel/taskstats.c
> +++ b/kernel/taskstats.c
> @@ -113,11 +113,10 @@ static void send_cpu_listeners(struct sk_buff *skb,
>         struct listener *s, *tmp;
>         struct sk_buff *skb_next, *skb_cur = skb;
>         void *reply = genlmsg_data(genlhdr);
> -       int rc, delcount = 0;
> +       int delcount = 0;
> 
>         genlmsg_end(skb, reply);
> 
> -       rc = 0;
>         down_read(&listeners->sem);
>         list_for_each_entry(s, &listeners->list, list) {
>                 skb_next = NULL;
> @@ -126,8 +125,8 @@ static void send_cpu_listeners(struct sk_buff *skb,
>                         if (!skb_next)
>                                 break;
>                 }
> -               rc = genlmsg_unicast(&init_net, skb_cur, s->pid);
> -               if (rc == -ECONNREFUSED) {
> +               if (genlmsg_unicast(&init_net, skb_cur, s->pid) ==
> +                   -ECONNREFUSED) {

I thought about that as well; and I did not like that because of the ugly
line break in this condition.

I did not try but I bet (a beverage of your choice) that the object code
remains the same also for your suggested patch. Try to disprove my claim 
and possibly earn yourself a beverage when we meet...

Lukas