On Tue, 2024-03-12 at 20:18 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> Thanks! This looks to do exactly what it describes. :)
>
> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook
Thanks!
On Mon, 2024-03-04 at 18:00 +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > Personally, I think a single patch that sets "= {}" for all of them
> > and
> > drop the all the "= 0" or "= NULL" assignments would be the
> > cleanest way
> > to go.
>
> I agree with Kees, set = {} and drop all the "something = 0;"
On Wed, 2024-02-28 at 09:21 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> I totally understand. If the "uninitialized" warnings were actually
> reliable, I would agree. I look at it this way:
>
> - initializations can be missed either in static initializers or via
> run time initializers. (So the risk of mistake
On Wed, 2024-02-28 at 13:22 +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > Any preference? Or maybe am I missing your point and talking
> > nonsense?
> >
>
> So my preference would go to the addition of:
>
> info.new_field = 0;
>
> But that's very minor and if you think it is easier to manage and
On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 18:16 +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > > Why doing a full init of the struct when all fields are re-
> > > written a few
> > > lines after ?
> >
> > It's a nice change for robustness and makes future changes easier.
> > It's
> > not actually wasteful since the compiler
On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 07:02 +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > It could be possible to initialize the new field for each arch to
> > 0, but
> > instead simply inialize the field with a C99 struct inializing
> > syntax.
>
> Why doing a full init of the struct when all fields are re-written a
> few
