netdev - Re: [PATCH v3] sctp: Add buffer utilization fields to /proc/net/sctp/assocs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:29:29 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	dilip.daya@...com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
	nhorman@...driver.com, dborkman@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sctp: Add buffer utilization fields to
 /proc/net/sctp/assocs

From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:28:00 -0400 (EDT)

> Looks good, applied, thanks.

Actually, no, this is completely broken:

net/sctp/proc.c: In function ‘sctp_assocs_seq_show’:
net/sctp/proc.c:363:18: error: expected ‘)’ before ‘;’ token
net/sctp/proc.c:365:2: warning: format ‘%lu’ expects argument of type ‘long unsigned int’, but argument 3 has type ‘int’ [-Wformat]
net/sctp/proc.c:365:2: warning: format ‘%d’ expects a matching ‘int’ argument [-Wformat]
net/sctp/proc.c:365:2: warning: format ‘%d’ expects a matching ‘int’ argument [-Wformat]
net/sctp/proc.c:365:2: warning: format ‘%d’ expects a matching ‘int’ argument [-Wformat]
net/sctp/proc.c:365:2: warning: format ‘%d’ expects a matching ‘int’ argument [-Wformat]
net/sctp/proc.c:365:2: warning: format ‘%d’ expects a matching ‘int’ argument [-Wformat]
net/sctp/proc.c:365:2: warning: format ‘%d’ expects a matching ‘int’ argument [-Wformat]
net/sctp/proc.c:365:2: error: expected ‘;’ before ‘}’ token
make[1]: *** [net/sctp/proc.o] Error 1
make: *** [net/sctp/proc.o] Error 2

You didn't even compile test this.

I think I'll ignore your submissions for a while, your analysis is
extremely poor if you don't think you need to build test after
"simple" edits of your changes.