Re: Coverity: __do_sys_pidfd_send_signal(): UNINIT

[Christian Brauner]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 08:18:01PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/14, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 06:55:55PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > We want to check the "flags" argument at the start, we do not want to
> > > delay the "case 0:" check until we have f.file (so that we can check
> > > f.file->f_flags).
> >
> > Fair point. I was thinking delaying it would make it simpler, but then
> > you have to free the file and it's less fast in the EINVAL case.
> 
> plus we do not want to return, say, -EBADF if the "flags" argument is wrong.
> 
> > I also don't have a strong opinion here.
> 
> Neither me.

Or you know, we just don't care about this. ;)
In any case since tis is a false positive it's not urgent in any way. If
either of you cares enough about this then please just send me patch that
reorders the checks to please that tool. The specific way doesn't matter
to me as well as long as we don't pointlessly fdget()/fdput().