On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 04:03:47PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:43:11AM +0100, Colin King wrote: > > From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]> > > > > The variable ret is being initialized with the value -EINVAL however > > this value is never read and ret is being re-assigned later on. Hence > > the initialization is redundant and can be removed. > > > > Addresses-Coverity: ("Unused value") > > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]> > > Acked-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/misc/lkdtm/core.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/misc/lkdtm/core.c b/drivers/misc/lkdtm/core.c > > index bba093224813..92df35fdeab0 100644 > > --- a/drivers/misc/lkdtm/core.c > > +++ b/drivers/misc/lkdtm/core.c > > @@ -390,7 +390,7 @@ static int __init lkdtm_module_init(void) > > { > > struct crashpoint *crashpoint = NULL; > > const struct crashtype *crashtype = NULL; > > - int ret = -EINVAL; > > + int ret; > > int i; > > > > /* Neither or both of these need to be set */ > > -- > > 2.20.1 > > > > With this patch now applied, I get this build warning: > drivers/misc/lkdtm/core.c: In function lkdtm_module_init: > drivers/misc/lkdtm/core.c:467:9: warning: ret may be used uninitialized in > this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] > return ret; > ^~~ > > So are you _sure_ it shouldn't be initialized?
In looking at the code in my tree, ret is used uninitialized with this patch, so maybe coverity is wrong, or I don't have all of the needed patches? thanks, greg k-h
