lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/7] crypto: testmgr: fix warning
    On 10/19/09 9:58 AM, Jarod Wilson wrote:
    > On 10/19/09 9:52 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
    >> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Felipe Contreras wrote:
    >>
    >>> crypto/testmgr.c: In function ?test_cprng?:
    >>> crypto/testmgr.c:1204: warning: ?err? may be used uninitialized in
    >>> this function
    >>>
    >>> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras<felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
    >>> ---
    >>> crypto/testmgr.c | 2 +-
    >>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
    >>>
    >>> diff --git a/crypto/testmgr.c b/crypto/testmgr.c
    >>> index 6d5b746..1f2357b 100644
    >>> --- a/crypto/testmgr.c
    >>> +++ b/crypto/testmgr.c
    >>> @@ -1201,7 +1201,7 @@ static int test_cprng(struct crypto_rng *tfm,
    >>> struct cprng_testvec *template,
    >>> unsigned int tcount)
    >>> {
    >>> const char *algo = crypto_tfm_alg_driver_name(crypto_rng_tfm(tfm));
    >>> - int err, i, j, seedsize;
    >>> + int err = 0, i, j, seedsize;
    >>> u8 *seed;
    >>> char result[32];
    >>
    >> As it is not obvious to me immediately why/whether tcount couldn't be
    >> zero
    >> (which would cause uninitialized use of 'err'), I am not merging this
    >> through trivial tree. Herbert?
    >
    > I believe I'm the guilty party who wrote the code in question.
    > Initializing err to 0 isn't correct. tcount should always be at least 1,
    > if its 0, test_cprng has been called with invalid parameters. I believe
    > err would best be initialized to -EINVAL, lest the caller think they
    > were successful.

    ...and I need to re-read said code more carefully. tcount is
    desc->suite.cprng.count, which is ANSI_CPRNG_AES_TEST_VECTORS, which is
    #define'd to 6, and is the count of how many cprng test vectors there
    are. If someone changes that to 0, then I guess a retval of 0 would
    actually be correct, since no tests failed...

    So yeah, I rescind my claim that initializing err to 0 is incorrect, I
    think that's just fine.

    --
    Jarod Wilson
    jarod@redhat.com


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-10-19 16:07    [W:0.032 / U:2.768 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site