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, 13 Nov 2023 09:31:12 +0000
From: Simon Horman <>
To: Kunwu Chan <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i40e: Use correct buffer size

On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 07:01:46PM +0800, Kunwu Chan wrote:
> The size of "i40e_dbg_command_buf" is 256, the size of "name" is
> at most 256, plus a null character and the format size,
> the total size should be 516.

Hi Kunwu Chan,

Thanks for your patch.

I'm slightly confused as to why name is at most 256 bytes.
I see that name is IFNAMSIZ = 16 bytes.

In any case, perhaps we could make buf_size dependent on it's
constituent variables, to make things a bit clearer and
a bit more robust.

Something like this (completely untested!):

	int buf_size = IFNAMSIZ + sizeof(i40e_dbg_command_buf) + 4;

Also, I'm not clear if this addresses a problem that can manifest in
practice. Which affects if it it should be treated as a fix for iwl-net
with a fixes tag, or as a feature for iwl-next without a fixes tag.

In either case, if you repost, please designate the target tree in the
Subject line. Something like this:

	Subject: [PATCH iwl-next] ...

Lastly, when reposting patches, please allow 24h to elapse since
the previous posting.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists