linux-kernel - Re: [patch] extcon: use correct size

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

Message-ID: <20160204195341.GB32153@mwanda>
Date:	Thu, 4 Feb 2016 22:53:41 +0300
From:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:	walter harms <wharms@....de>
Cc:	MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
	Jaewon Kim <jaewon02.kim@...sung.com>,
	Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] extcon: use correct size

On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 01:47:41PM +0100, walter harms wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 04.02.2016 12:36, schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> > The info->status[] array has 3 elements.  We are using size
> > MAX77843_MUIC_IRQ_NUM (16) instead of MAX77843_MUIC_STATUS_NUM (3) as
> > intended.
> > 
> > Fixes: 135d9f7d135a ('extcon: max77843: Clear IRQ bits state before request IRQ')
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
> > ---
> > This is from static analysis and *NOT TESTED*.  Please review carefully.
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-max77843.c b/drivers/extcon/extcon-max77843.c
> > index 7bbc300..b188bd6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-max77843.c
> > +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-max77843.c
> > @@ -806,7 +806,7 @@ static int max77843_muic_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  	/* Clear IRQ bits before request IRQs */
> >  	ret = regmap_bulk_read(max77843->regmap_muic,
> >  			MAX77843_MUIC_REG_INT1, info->status,
> > -			MAX77843_MUIC_IRQ_NUM);
> > +			MAX77843_MUIC_STATUS_NUM);
> >  	if (ret) {
> >  		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to Clear IRQ bits\n");
> >  		goto err_muic_irq;
> > --
> 
> 
> just for my curiosity: what is wrong with ARRAY_SIZE() ?
> So far i understand is the functions intention to fill the array
> completely.

It's done pretty consistently the one way...  Jaewon?

regards,
dan carpenter