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: <175a9095-bd8a-4384-c573-cfe8267a8417@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Jun 2023 12:10:46 +0200
From:   "Wilczynski, Michal" <michal.wilczynski@...el.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     <rafael@...nel.org>, <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>, <lenb@...nel.org>,
        <dave.jiang@...el.com>, <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        <rui.zhang@...el.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/10] acpi/nfit: Improve terminator line in
 acpi_nfit_ids



On 6/29/2023 10:51 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> Michal Wilczynski wrote:
>> Currently terminator line contains redunant characters. Remove them and
>> also remove a comma at the end.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Wilczynski <michal.wilczynski@...el.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c b/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
>> index aff79cbc2190..95930e9d776c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
>> @@ -3455,7 +3455,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__acpi_nfit_notify);
>>  
>>  static const struct acpi_device_id acpi_nfit_ids[] = {
>>  	{ "ACPI0012", 0 },
>> -	{ "", 0 },
>> +	{}
> Looks like a pointless change to me.

It's not very consequential, but isn't totally pointless in my view:

"Terminator line is established for the data structure arrays which may have unknown,
to the caller, sizes. The purpose of it is to stop iteration over an array and avoid
out-of-boundary access. Nevertheless, we may apply a bit more stricter rule to avoid
potential, but unlike, event of adding the entry after terminator, already at compile time.
This will be achieved by not putting comma at the end of terminator line"



Anyway I can drop this change, it's just confusing everyone


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ