Re: [PATCH 1/2] Possible uninitialized 'last' variable in usdt_copyin_data()

Kris Van Hees <[email protected]>
Newsgroups dev.linux.lists.dtrace
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 01:12:53PM -0400, Eugene Loh wrote:
> On 8/15/25 11:25, Kris Van Hees wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 06:46:05PM -0400, [email protected] wrote:
> > > From: Eugene Loh <[email protected]>
> > > 
> > > Some compilers warn:
> > > 
> > > libcommon/usdt_parser.c: In function ???usdt_copyin_data???:
> > > libcommon/usdt_parser.c:191:15: warning:
> > >     ???last??? may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
> > >      last->next = blk;
> > >      ~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~
> > > 
> > > Change the "if" check to make it easier for compilers to recognize
> > > that "last" will be initialized (and non-NULL even!).
> > I disagree...  What compiler version reported this as a warning?  The warning
> > shows a limitation of the compiler to see that last can actually never be
> > used uninitialized.
> 
> OL8 with "yum update" then "make".  Looks like
> gcc (GCC) 8.5.0 20210514 (Red Hat 8.5.0-26.0.1)
> Should I be using a different recipe?

8.5.0 is definitely an old compiler.  So that is not entirely unexpected.

> At least in my opinion, the new code with this patch is simply cleaner.

I guess that will always be subjective...  I really prefer the original code,
because it captures IMHO better that last depends on first, i.e. there is no
concept of a last block until there is at least a first block, since last is
the most recently added block (which cannot exist until there has been a
first).  With the new code, while it avoids a warning on an older compiler,
you make the conditional operate on last, which seems counter-intuitive to me
for a construct where you have a 'first block' and 'more recently added block'.

YMMV

> > I don't think we should make changes like these to accomodate compielrs that
> > are less advanced.  We generally expect systems to be updated to the most
> > recent version of packages so that would include the compiler.
> > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Eugene Loh <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > >   libcommon/usdt_parser.c | 4 ++--
> > >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/libcommon/usdt_parser.c b/libcommon/usdt_parser.c
> > > index 864198098..d8cb9b7ba 100644
> > > --- a/libcommon/usdt_parser.c
> > > +++ b/libcommon/usdt_parser.c
> > > @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ usdt_destroy_data(usdt_data_t *data)
> > >   usdt_data_t *
> > >   usdt_copyin_data(int in, int out, int *ok)
> > >   {
> > > -	usdt_data_t *first = NULL, *last;
> > > +	usdt_data_t *first = NULL, *last = NULL;
> > >   	size_t cnt;
> > >   	*ok = 1;
> > > @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ usdt_copyin_data(int in, int out, int *ok)
> > >   		if ((blk = usdt_copyin_block(in, out, ok)) == NULL)
> > >   			goto err;
> > > -		if (first == NULL)
> > > +		if (last == NULL)
> > >   			first = last = blk;
> > >   		else {
> > >   			last->next = blk;
> > > -- 
> > > 2.47.3
> > >
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.