[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <587c59c1-17f2-4c16-b2b7-1b1208e7c128@kadam.mountain>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 09:55:02 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
Cc: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>,
Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: fsl_upm: Fix an off-by one test in
fun_exec_op()
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 08:37:02AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Harshit and I were mucking with this about yesterday. He made
> Coccinelle script as well.
>
> We found three bugs in max9286_parse_dt(), hisi_inno_phy_probe() and
> jent_testing_store(). Only the one in hisi_inno_phy_probe() is real
> life bad because the others do an out of bounds check followed by a
> mask.
Actually wait. hisi_inno_phy_probe() is not a bug at all.
MAX9286_NUM_GMSL and MAX9286_NUM_GMSL are both 4.
I was wondering why Smatch didn't find this bug.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists