From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755479AbaHHBB0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Aug 2014 21:01:26 -0400 Received: from mail-qa0-f49.google.com ([209.85.216.49]:48937 "EHLO mail-qa0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755079AbaHHBBY convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Aug 2014 21:01:24 -0400 From: Paul Moore To: David Miller Cc: geert@linux-m68k.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: sel_netif_init: 'err' is used uninitialized Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 21:01:19 -0400 Message-ID: <5275439.odfNAhPpkP@sifl> User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.15.7-gentoo; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20140807.120454.1646328149054855088.davem@davemloft.net> References: <5750080.46d2jsPKXX@sifl> <20140807.120454.1646328149054855088.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday, August 07, 2014 12:04:54 PM David Miller wrote: > From: Paul Moore > Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 10:26:14 -0400 > > > On Thursday, August 07, 2014 12:31:15 PM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > >> > >> security/selinux/netif.c: In function ‘sel_netif_init’: > >> /scratch/geert/linux/linux-m68k/security/selinux/netif.c:285: warning: > >> ‘err’ is used uninitialized in this function > >> > >> Should it just return 0, like before? > >> Or should it return the return value of register_netdevice_notifier() > >> instead, which also returns an error code? Or is that failure > >> non-critical? > > > > Hi, > > > > I posted a fix for this two days ago to the SELinux list (see below). As > > soon as -rc1 is released and linux-next is back in business I'll be > > pushing the patch to the SELinux #next branch. > > > > * http://marc.info/?l=selinux&m=140727033030054&w=2 > > With respect to this and the lack-of-inline warning fix we spoke about > yesterday, why are you waiting and only pushing such bug fixes into your > "next" branch? Simply put, I didn't think the patches were significant enough to push at this point in time. > Those sort of things should be sent to Linus now to correct the errors > introduced during the merge window, as I have done last night for all > of the networking merge fallout. I'll (re)post the patches with a pull request in just a moment, CC'ing all the various mailing lists and you guys can figure out who best to merge them. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com