[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EAFE6DF.8030403@bfs.de>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 13:32:31 +0100
From: walter harms <wharms@....de>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
CC: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>,
"Mark A. Grondona" <mgrondona@...l.gov>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] edac: sb_edac: add sanity check to silence static checker
Am 01.11.2011 07:28, schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> I assume the the check on if (limit <= prv) prevents n_tads from
> actually reaching MAX_TAD. The problem with that is that it relies
> on the hardware returning the right value and Smatch complains that
> if it doesn't we could have a buffer overflow.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
> ---
> Feel free to ignore this patch if you want. I don't have very stong
> feelings about this either way.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/edac/sb_edac.c b/drivers/edac/sb_edac.c
> index 7a402bf..ebf386c 100644
> --- a/drivers/edac/sb_edac.c
> +++ b/drivers/edac/sb_edac.c
> @@ -970,6 +970,12 @@ static int get_memory_error_data(struct mem_ctl_info *mci,
> break;
> prv = limit;
> }
> + if (n_tads == MAX_TAD) {
> + sprintf(msg, "Could not discover the memory channel");
why the sprintf() ? can you not simply:
edac_mc_handle_ce_no_info(mci,"Could not discover the memory channel");
re,
wh
> + edac_mc_handle_ce_no_info(mci, msg);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> ch_way = TAD_CH(reg) + 1;
> sck_way = TAD_SOCK(reg) + 1;
> /*
--
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