[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160715131653.4c9ac475@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:16:53 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf script python: Fix string vs byte array
resolving
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 18:13:10 +0200
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:02:31PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > > for "AA\1\0" this returns "1" although that should return "0".
> > >
> > > orig len 4
> > > decremented len 3
> > > for:
> > > 0 1
> > >
> > > index 2 would not be inspected. Or am I missing something?
> > >
> > > I think that the for check should be "i < len"
> >
> > Yes it should be. I think we got the two solutions mixed up.
> >
> > With the above len--, it should be i < len, but when we did the check
> > for zero at the end, we needed the i < len - 1
>
> ugh right.. should be 'i < len' check in the for loop,
>
> there's also the patch 2/3 that needs to be changed
>
I'm wondering if we should also add at the beginning:
if (!len)
return 0;
Otherwise we will be accessing out of bounds with the len-1.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists