[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bd773190-1cdd-4faf-be39-ea042d6e8124@ieee.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 14:55:14 -0500
From: Alex Elder <elder@...e.org>
To: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@...ux.dev>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: Remove unnecessary NUL-termination
checks
On 4/1/25 2:51 PM, Thorsten Blum wrote:
> On 1. Apr 2025, at 01:31, Alex Elder wrote:
>> On 3/31/25 1:39 PM, Thorsten Blum wrote:
>>> @@ -125,16 +125,6 @@ static int fw_mgmt_interface_fw_version_operation(struct fw_mgmt *fw_mgmt,
>>> strscpy_pad(fw_info->firmware_tag, response.firmware_tag);
>>> - /*
>>> - * The firmware-tag should be NULL terminated, otherwise throw error but
>>> - * don't fail.
>>> - */
>>> - if (fw_info->firmware_tag[GB_FIRMWARE_TAG_MAX_SIZE - 1] != '\0') {
>>> - dev_err(fw_mgmt->parent,
>>> - "fw-version: firmware-tag is not NULL terminated\n");
>>> - fw_info->firmware_tag[GB_FIRMWARE_TAG_MAX_SIZE - 1] = '\0';
>>> - }
>>
>> Interesting this didn't return an error, while others below did.
>
> Should I keep it that way when checking for a truncated firmware tag or
> should this also fail like the others?
>
> Thanks,
> Thorsten
>
I don't know the answer right now, and I don't have time at
the moment to investigate. Just keep that logic the way it
is, and make your other fix.
-Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists