[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <176651123567.749296.7003388912771665169.b4-ty@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2025 23:03:55 +0530
From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To: Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@...com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] phy: stm32-usphyc: Fix off by one in probe()
On Tue, 09 Dec 2025 09:53:36 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> The "index" variable is used as an index into the usbphyc->phys[] array
> which has usbphyc->nphys elements. So if it is equal to usbphyc->nphys
> then it is one element out of bounds. The "index" comes from the
> device tree so it's data that we trust and it's unlikely to be wrong,
> however it's obviously still worth fixing the bug. Change the > to >=.
>
>
> [...]
Applied, thanks!
[1/1] phy: stm32-usphyc: Fix off by one in probe()
commit: cabd25b57216ddc132efbcc31f972baa03aad15a
Best regards,
--
~Vinod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists