From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764325AbYARWBS (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:01:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759132AbYARWBJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:01:09 -0500 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:35291 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752496AbYARWBH (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:01:07 -0500 Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:00:55 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org, marciobuss@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 9564] New: Uninitialzed variable fields cvt.h_margin and cvt.v_margin Message-Id: <20080118140055.fe862b78.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:54:59 -0800 (PST) bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote: > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9564 > > Summary: Uninitialzed variable fields cvt.h_margin and > cvt.v_margin > Product: Drivers > Version: 2.5 > KernelVersion: 2.6.23 > Platform: All > OS/Version: Linux > Tree: Mainline > Status: NEW > Severity: normal > Priority: P1 > Component: Video(Other) > AssignedTo: drivers_video-other@kernel-bugs.osdl.org > ReportedBy: marciobuss@gmail.com > > > The errors can be found at drivers/video/fbcvt.c as follows: > > (1) the test "if (margin)" at line 310 evaluates to false, > (2) this makes the test "if (cvt.flags & FB_CVT_FLAG_MARGINS)" at line 352 > to evaluate to false as well > (3) now cvt.h_margin is uninitialized at line 359, 368, and 370, and > cvt.v_margin is uninitizalied at line 371. > > In other words, both cvt.v_margin and cvt.h_margin are initialized conditinally > but used unconditionally. This bug is a false positive only if the parameter > "margins" at line 304 is never 0. However, this would make the test at line > 310 unnecessary -- anyone looking at the code is miled into believing that > 0 is a legal value for "margins". This means the code does require some change > in my humble opinion. > Could someone please take a look at this?