[PATCH v3] fs/btrfs: Fix uninitialized variable

2021-04-20 Thread Khaled ROMDHANI 
As reported by the Coverity static analysis.
The variable zone is not initialized which
may causes a failed assertion.

Addresses-Coverity: ("Uninitialized variables")
Signed-off-by: Khaled ROMDHANI 
---
v3: catch default as an assertion failure
as proposed by David Sterba.
---
 fs/btrfs/zoned.c | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
index 70b23a0d03b1..432509f4b3ac 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
@@ -143,6 +143,9 @@ static inline u32 sb_zone_number(int shift, int mirror)
case 0: zone = 0; break;
case 1: zone = 1ULL << (BTRFS_SB_LOG_FIRST_SHIFT - shift); break;
case 2: zone = 1ULL << (BTRFS_SB_LOG_SECOND_SHIFT - shift); break;
+   default:
+   ASSERT(zone);
+   break;
}
 
ASSERT(zone <= U32_MAX);
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH v2] fs/btrfs: Fix uninitialized variable

2021-04-20 Thread Khaled Romdhani 
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 01:22:14PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 04:36:16PM +0100, Khaled ROMDHANI wrote:
> > As reported by the Coverity static analysis.
> > The variable zone is not initialized which
> > may causes a failed assertion.
> > 
> > Addresses-Coverity: ("Uninitialized variables")
> > Signed-off-by: Khaled ROMDHANI 
> > ---
> > v2: add a default case as proposed by David Sterba
> > ---
> >  fs/btrfs/zoned.c | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> > index eeb3ebe11d7a..82527308d165 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> > @@ -143,6 +143,9 @@ static inline u32 sb_zone_number(int shift, int mirror)
> > case 0: zone = 0; break;
> > case 1: zone = 1ULL << (BTRFS_SB_LOG_FIRST_SHIFT - shift); break;
> > case 2: zone = 1ULL << (BTRFS_SB_LOG_SECOND_SHIFT - shift); break;
> 
> It took me a while to spot these break statements.
> 
> > +   default:
> > +   zone = 0;
> > +   break;
> 
> This break needs to be indented one more tab.
> 
> > }
> >  
> > ASSERT(zone <= U32_MAX);
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter

Sorry, but I checked the patch using checkpatch.pl
before sending it. Is that blocks some smatch parsing process?

In any cases, I will send a V3.

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH v2] fs/btrfs: Fix uninitialized variable

2021-04-20 Thread Khaled Romdhani 
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 07:32:25PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 04:36:16PM +0100, Khaled ROMDHANI wrote:
> > As reported by the Coverity static analysis.
> > The variable zone is not initialized which
> > may causes a failed assertion.
> > 
> > Addresses-Coverity: ("Uninitialized variables")
> > Signed-off-by: Khaled ROMDHANI 
> > ---
> > v2: add a default case as proposed by David Sterba
> > ---
> >  fs/btrfs/zoned.c | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> > index eeb3ebe11d7a..82527308d165 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> > @@ -143,6 +143,9 @@ static inline u32 sb_zone_number(int shift, int mirror)
> > case 0: zone = 0; break;
> > case 1: zone = 1ULL << (BTRFS_SB_LOG_FIRST_SHIFT - shift); break;
> > case 2: zone = 1ULL << (BTRFS_SB_LOG_SECOND_SHIFT - shift); break;
> > +   default:
> > +   zone = 0;
> 
> Well yeah but this is not a valid case at all, we'd rather catch that as
> an assertion failure than letting is silently continue.

So, as all callers pass valid value. It would be
better to catch that as an assertion failure.

[PATCH v2] fs/btrfs: Fix uninitialized variable

2021-04-17 Thread Khaled ROMDHANI 
As reported by the Coverity static analysis.
The variable zone is not initialized which
may causes a failed assertion.

Addresses-Coverity: ("Uninitialized variables")
Signed-off-by: Khaled ROMDHANI 
---
v2: add a default case as proposed by David Sterba
---
 fs/btrfs/zoned.c | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
index eeb3ebe11d7a..82527308d165 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
@@ -143,6 +143,9 @@ static inline u32 sb_zone_number(int shift, int mirror)
case 0: zone = 0; break;
case 1: zone = 1ULL << (BTRFS_SB_LOG_FIRST_SHIFT - shift); break;
case 2: zone = 1ULL << (BTRFS_SB_LOG_SECOND_SHIFT - shift); break;
+   default:
+   zone = 0;
+   break;
}
 
ASSERT(zone <= U32_MAX);
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH-next] fs/btrfs: Fix uninitialized variable

2021-04-17 Thread Khaled Romdhani 
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 07:32:03PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 02:06:04PM +0100, Khaled ROMDHANI wrote:
> > The variable zone is not initialized. It
> > may causes a failed assertion.
> 
> Failed assertion means the 2nd one checking that the result still fits
> to 32bit type. That would mean that none of the cases were hit, but all
> callers pass valid values.
> 
> It would be better to add a default: case to catch that explicitly,
> though hitting that is considered 'will not happen'.

Yes. I will send a V2.

[PATCH-next] fs/btrfs: Fix uninitialized variable

2021-04-13 Thread Khaled ROMDHANI 
The variable zone is not initialized. It
may causes a failed assertion.

Addresses-Coverity: ("Uninitialized variables")

Signed-off-by: Khaled ROMDHANI 
---
 fs/btrfs/zoned.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
index eeb3ebe11d7a..ee15ab8dccb5 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
@@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ static int sb_write_pointer(struct block_device *bdev, 
struct blk_zone *zones,
  */
 static inline u32 sb_zone_number(int shift, int mirror)
 {
-   u64 zone;
+   u64 zone = 0;
 
ASSERT(mirror < BTRFS_SUPER_MIRROR_MAX);
switch (mirror) {
-- 
2.17.1