[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061003170751.GG17252@bougret.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 10:07:51 -0700
From: Jean Tourrilhes <jt@....hp.com>
To: Samuel Tardieu <sam@...1149.net>
Cc: Pavel Roskin <proski@....org>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.18-mm2 - oops in cache_alloc_refill()
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 06:45:35PM +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> On 3/10, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
>
> | > I suggest that you revert the memset() to IW_ESSID_MAX_SIZE+1 so that
> | > the last byte is cleared as well. Or am I missing something?
> |
> | No, that would bring back the slab/memory overflow we are
> | trying to get rid of.
>
> Then I am puzzled by the function declaration:
>
> static int orinoco_hw_get_essid(struct orinoco_private *priv, int *active,
> char buf[IW_ESSID_MAX_SIZE+1])
>
> Do you mean that this function is called with a buf parameter which
> doesn't have the expected size? (as far as the function declaration is
> concerned) Shouldn't the declaration be changed to
>
> static int orinoco_hw_get_essid(struct orinoco_private *priv, int *active,
> char buf[IW_ESSID_MAX_SIZE])
>
> then to reflect the reality? (it won't change the code but would be
> clearer from a documentation point of view)
Yep, that one is a bug.
Thanks !
> Sam
Jean
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists