On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:08:25 +0100 walter harms <wharms@xxxxxx> wrote: > Am 22.02.2012 08:54, schrieb Dan Carpenter: > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 05:39:42PM +0100, walter harms wrote: > >>> - memset(&(msg1.bssid.data), 0xFF, > >>> sizeof(p80211item_pstr6_t)); > >>> + memset(&msg1.bssid.data, 0xFF, sizeof(msg1.bssid.data)); > >>> msg1.bssid.data.len = 6; > >> > >> maybe msg1.bssid.data.len is related to msg1.bssid.data ? > >> I guess sizeof(msg1.bssid.data)-1 (why -1). > >> > >> perhaps you can fix both ? > >> > > > > It's an interesting point. The problem is that I don't actually > > have this hardware. On the patch which I sent, it was obvious what > > the intent. My guess is that msg1.bssid.data[] should have 6 > > elements instead of 7, but I don't feel confident enough to sign off > > on that. msg1.bssid.data.data has 6 elements. msg1.bssid.data is a Pascal string, i.e. a length byte and 6 bytes of data. The intention of the code must have been: memset(&msg1.bssid.data.data, 0xFF, sizeof(msg1.bssid.data.data)); sizeof(msg1.bssid.data.data) is 6. Writing 15 bytes to a structure that is 7 bytes long is certainly wrong and should be fixed. I have the hardware, so please copy me if testing is needed. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
