diff options
author | Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> | 2022-02-11 11:09:27 -0800 |
---|---|---|
committer | Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> | 2022-02-15 09:58:34 -0800 |
commit | d3b0b80064e0416850f818184b8f7bba9fdf8c40 (patch) | |
tree | 7d5af8c81563ba56e0bded28d08607731b17f57a /tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c | |
parent | edc21dc909c6c133a2727f063eadd7907af51f94 (diff) | |
download | linux-d3b0b80064e0416850f818184b8f7bba9fdf8c40.tar.bz2 |
selftests/bpf: Fix GCC11 compiler warnings in -O2 mode
When compiling selftests in -O2 mode with GCC1, we get three new
compilations warnings about potentially uninitialized variables.
Compiler is wrong 2 out of 3 times, but this patch makes GCC11 happy
anyways, as it doesn't cost us anything and makes optimized selftests
build less annoying.
The amazing one is tc_redirect case of token that is malloc()'ed before
ASSERT_OK_PTR() check is done on it. Seems like GCC pessimistically
assumes that libbpf_get_error() will dereference the contents of the
pointer (no it won't), so the only way I found to shut GCC up was to do
zero-initializaing calloc(). This one was new to me.
For linfo case, GCC didn't realize that linfo_size will be initialized
by the function that is returning linfo_size as out parameter.
core_reloc.c case was a real bug, we can goto cleanup before initializing
obj. But we don't need to do any clean up, so just continue iteration
intstead.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220211190927.1434329-1-andrii@kernel.org
Diffstat (limited to 'tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c')
-rw-r--r-- | tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c | 2 |
1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c index 8b652f5ce423..ec823561b912 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c @@ -6556,7 +6556,7 @@ done: static void do_test_info_raw(unsigned int test_num) { const struct prog_info_raw_test *test = &info_raw_tests[test_num - 1]; - unsigned int raw_btf_size, linfo_str_off, linfo_size; + unsigned int raw_btf_size, linfo_str_off, linfo_size = 0; int btf_fd = -1, prog_fd = -1, err = 0; void *raw_btf, *patched_linfo = NULL; const char *ret_next_str; |