Re: [PATCH v2 00/16] Remove uninitialized_var() macro

[Sedat Dilek]

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 5:57 PM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 09:03:34AM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 5:30 AM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > v2:
> > > - more special-cased fixes
> > > - add reviews
> > > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200603233203.1695403-1-keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > Using uninitialized_var() is dangerous as it papers over real bugs[1]
> > > (or can in the future), and suppresses unrelated compiler warnings
> > > (e.g. "unused variable"). If the compiler thinks it is uninitialized,
> > > either simply initialize the variable or make compiler changes.
> > >
> > > As recommended[2] by[3] Linus[4], remove the macro.
> > >
> > > Most of the 300 uses don't cause any warnings on gcc 9.3.0, so they're in
> > > a single treewide commit in this series. A few others needed to actually
> > > get cleaned up, and I broke those out into individual patches.
> > >
> > > The tree is:
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/log/?h=kspp/uninit/macro
> > >
> > > -Kees
> > >
> >
> > Hi Kees,
> >
> > thanks for doing a v2 of your patchset.
> >
> > As I saw Jason Yan providing some "uninitialized_var() macro" patches
> > to the MLs I pointen him to your tree "v1".
>
> Thanks!
>
> > BTW, I have tested your "v1" against Linux v5.7 (see [1]) - just
> > yesterday with Linux v5.7.5-rc1.
> >
> > Is it possible to have a v2 of this patchset on top od Linux v5.7 - if
> > you do not mind.
>
> Since it's only going to be for post-v5.8, I'm fine skipping the v5.7
> testing. Mainly I'm looking at v5.8 and linux-next.
>
> Thanks for looking at it!
>

Thanks for the feedback.

"I knew you'd say that."
( Judge Dredd )

- Sedat -