Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:28:39 +0300 | From | Cyrill Gorcunov <> | Subject | Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 9564] New: Uninitialzed variable fields cvt.h_margin and cvt.v_margin |
| |
[Andrew Morton - Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 02:00:55PM -0800] | 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?
unfortunelly, it's not really obvious what is the right way of calculation. *should* the 1.8% margin be involved in calculation all the time or 0 is legal too?
- Cyrill -
| |