From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (szxga02-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.188]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5019217F27; Wed, 20 Aug 2025 06:52:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.188 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755672733; cv=none; b=FLDwgTfdbdUzocKTLY5I0oO3eSV5FT8TocR2Rup5sCeuXNKn3JDeACxkJ0/qDj8SjxRmMo3a3WHoqJ1QgGKUmkhfbNIvBcU7Hv9Dpw8vcdZIX1+4pf8J7HqQL20baXlkric9XycW5TZ5DfHBtgVA4wZ/1HAR0Bjogi/YY9Z6TBk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755672733; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lftg13XEh+sVNwkBhLmMfjNGdF9EO0ZzzIRQu3aI6rU=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Hqh1PxawCnEtQfeTQVLiLoHTTvMXumynvvwoTfNrWbj1vrWl5dkorKuqSU4C/QSsI0kfn7f6LViOvBg/z5rN4JzZrtvKoJrDru957NzhEtuX0Nrmf1Rh3ZL0BHbWlcZ3GjpUpPI5hn8taKM2r0AMjT2xsyoUj6dSzvll4X+G7as= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.188 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.48]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4c6H7h0Gf5zPqcX; Wed, 20 Aug 2025 14:47:28 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemf100007.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.181.221]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD612180080; Wed, 20 Aug 2025 14:52:03 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.109.184] (10.67.109.184) by kwepemf100007.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Wed, 20 Aug 2025 14:52:02 +0800 Message-ID: <8b836b6e-103a-41c2-b111-0417d8db4dce@huawei.com> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2025 14:52:01 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: bpf: Fix uninitialized symbol 'retval_off' Content-Language: en-US To: Chenghao Duan , , , , , , CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , References: <20250820062520.846720-1-duanchenghao@kylinos.cn> From: Pu Lehui In-Reply-To: <20250820062520.846720-1-duanchenghao@kylinos.cn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems200001.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.67) To kwepemf100007.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.221) On 2025/8/20 14:25, Chenghao Duan wrote: > In __arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(), retval_off is only meaningful when > save_ret is true, so the current logic is correct. However, in the lgtm, and same for `ip_off`, pls patch it together. > original logic, retval_off is only initialized under certain > conditions, which may cause a build warning. > > So initialize retval_off unconditionally to fix it. > > Signed-off-by: Chenghao Duan > --- > arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 5 ++--- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c > index 10e01ff06312..49bbda8372b0 100644 > --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c > +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c > @@ -1079,10 +1079,9 @@ static int __arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *im, > stack_size += 16; > > save_ret = flags & (BPF_TRAMP_F_CALL_ORIG | BPF_TRAMP_F_RET_FENTRY_RET); > - if (save_ret) { > + if (save_ret) > stack_size += 16; /* Save both A5 (BPF R0) and A0 */ > - retval_off = stack_size; > - } > + retval_off = stack_size; > > stack_size += nr_arg_slots * 8; > args_off = stack_size;