Skip to content

ASoC: SOF: ipc4-topology: Fix use of unitialized value #5316

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
dbaluta wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

ASoC: SOF: ipc4-topology: Fix use of unitialized value #5316

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion sound/soc/sof/ipc4-topology.c
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1807,7 +1807,7 @@ sof_ipc4_prepare_copier_module(struct snd_sof_widget *swidget,
struct snd_sof_dev *sdev = snd_soc_component_get_drvdata(scomp);
struct sof_ipc4_copier_data *copier_data;
int input_fmt_index, output_fmt_index;
struct snd_pcm_hw_params ref_params;
struct snd_pcm_hw_params ref_params = { 0 };
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@ujfalusi ujfalusi Feb 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is so false report, I have refused to fix it out of principle ;)
ref_params is going to be initialized and when it is not we will just return with -EINVAL.
See the first switch (swidget->id) cases...

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

@dbaluta dbaluta Feb 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, this is a false positive. I wonder if we can mark it somehow so that the CI report

 build test / GCC static -fanalyzer (pull_request) Failing after 3m

would be useful.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@ujfalusi ujfalusi Feb 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

if nothing else we should take this patch..

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

@dbaluta dbaluta Feb 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@ujfalusi i noticed that there are at least 3-4 cases of similar false positives mostly in @thesofproject/amd code.

I have no strong preference or merging this patch.

Cc: @ranj063 @lgirdwood if you consider this useful you can merge it.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@ujfalusi ujfalusi Feb 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@dbaluta, fwiw, with

$ gcc --version                                 
gcc (GCC) 14.2.1 20240910
Copyright (C) 2024 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

-fanalyzer no longer reports false positive for this.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

@dbaluta dbaluta Feb 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@ujfalusi that's good news.

We are already using latest ubuntu, so at some point in the future the compiler version will be upgraded

Would anyone care to use a newer compiler version in .github/workflows/buildtest.yml?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@bardliao bardliao Feb 4, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wish we can switch to newer compiler version. :)

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@ujfalusi ujfalusi Feb 4, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'll try to figure this out

struct sof_ipc4_copier *ipc4_copier;
struct snd_sof_dai *dai;
u32 gtw_cfg_config_length;
Expand Down