Re: [PATCH] selftests/mm: Fix compiler -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

From: David Hildenbrand
Date: Wed Apr 09 2025 - 06:22:22 EST


On 09.04.25 12:09, Anshuman Khandual wrote:


On 4/9/25 15:27, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 09.04.25 11:50, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
Following build warning comes up for cow test as 'transferred' variable has
not been initialized. Fix the warning via zero init for the variable.

   CC       cow
cow.c: In function ‘do_test_vmsplice_in_parent’:
cow.c:365:61: warning: ‘transferred’ may be used uninitialized [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
   365 |                 cur = read(fds[0], new + total, transferred - total);
       |                                                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~
cow.c:296:29: note: ‘transferred’ was declared here
   296 |         ssize_t cur, total, transferred;
       |                             ^~~~~~~~~~~
   CC       compaction_test
   CC       gup_longterm

Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: linux-kselftest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx>
---
  tools/testing/selftests/mm/cow.c | 2 +-
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/cow.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/cow.c
index f0cb14ea8608..b6cfe0a4b7df 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/cow.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/cow.c
@@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ static void do_test_vmsplice_in_parent(char *mem, size_t size,
          .iov_base = mem,
          .iov_len = size,
      };
-    ssize_t cur, total, transferred;
+    ssize_t cur, total, transferred = 0;
      struct comm_pipes comm_pipes;
      char *old, *new;
      int ret, fds[2];


if (before_fork) {
    transferred = vmsplice(fds[1], &iov, 1, 0);
...

if (!before_fork) {
    transferred = vmsplice(fds[1], &iov, 1, 0);
...

for (total = 0; total < transferred; total += cur) {
...


And I don't see any jump label that could jump to code that would ve using transferred.

What am I missing?

Probably because both those conditional statements are not mutually
exclusive above with an if-else construct. Hence compiler flags it
rather as a false positive ? Initializing with 0 just works around
that false positive.

This is something the compiler should clearly be able to verify. before_fork is never changed in that function.

We should not work around wrong compilers.

Which compiler are you using such that you run into this issue?

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb