Re: [tip:x86/urgent] BUILD SUCCESS WITH WARNING 064855a69003c24bd6b473b367d364e418c57625
From: Borislav Petkov
Date: Thu Aug 19 2021 - 05:00:07 EST
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 02:15:16PM +0800, Chen, Rong A wrote:
> On 8/15/2021 4:42 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > Hi,
> > On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 04:36:40PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > tree/branch: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git x86/urgent
> > > branch HEAD: 064855a69003c24bd6b473b367d364e418c57625 x86/resctrl: Fix default monitoring groups reporting
> > >
> > > possible Warning in current branch:
> > >
> > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c:310 __mon_event_count() error: uninitialized symbol 'm'.
> > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c:315 __mon_event_count() error: potentially dereferencing uninitialized 'm'.
> > >
> > > Warning ids grouped by kconfigs:
> > >
> > > gcc_recent_errors
> > > `-- i386-randconfig-m021-20210812
> > > |-- arch-x86-kernel-cpu-resctrl-monitor.c-__mon_event_count()-error:potentially-dereferencing-uninitialized-m-.
> > > `-- arch-x86-kernel-cpu-resctrl-monitor.c-__mon_event_count()-error:uninitialized-symbol-m-.
> > AFAIR, I had already asked you guys to make those reports more useful
> > as, for example, adding a link to that randconfig above or even
> > attaching it so that a person - not a machine - reading it, can
> > *actually* act upon it.
> > But that hasn't happened.
> > Until it happens, I'm going to ignore all those reports from you.
> Hi Borislav,
> Sorry about it, the actual link is at https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/kbuild@xxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/PZVMY3VJU4QY4HQXHK3MLPQ2KZ5CNAYH/,
> and it's still an internal report that the robot don't know whether it's a
> false positive or not, we'll update the mail contents to avoid
Aha, ok, smatch thinks that m might not be initialized because
064855a69003 ("x86/resctrl: Fix default monitoring groups reporting")
removed the default case:
- * Code would never reach here because
- * an invalid event id would fail the __rmid_read.
- return -EINVAL;
I'm guessing that comment which got removed too, explains why that's ok.
Adding folks to Cc.