linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: Fix different base types in assignments and parameters

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]

Date:   Mon, 02 Aug 2021 17:21:14 +0200
From:   "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: Fix different base types in assignments and parameters

On Monday, August 2, 2021 4:26:33 PM CEST Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> On Monday, August 2, 2021 4:05:05 PM CEST Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 08:14:52PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > > Fix sparse warnings of different base types in assignments
> > > and in passing function parameters.
> > 
> > [...]
> > > 
> > > +	union {
> > > +                unsigned int f0;
> > > +                unsigned char f1[IPX_NODE_LEN];
> > 
> > What is going on here??  Why is f1 six bytes?
> 
> Please look at the third parameter of the latest memcpy() in this function.
> 

No, I'm wrong here. I must have exchanged in my mind the latest and the 
memcpy() before the latest. So I see a '6' in the wrong memcpy().

I'll fix it ASAP.

Thanks,

Fabio