On 01/30/2012 09:59 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> This data comes from the device, so probably it's fairly trustworthy but
> it makes the static checkers happy if we check it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff --git a/fs/exofs/super.c b/fs/exofs/super.c
> index d22cd16..755812a 100644
> --- a/fs/exofs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/exofs/super.c
> @@ -529,6 +529,8 @@ static int exofs_devs_2_odi(struct exofs_dt_device_info *dt_dev,
> struct osd_dev_info *odi)
> {
> odi->systemid_len = le32_to_cpu(dt_dev->systemid_len);
> + if (odi->systemid_len > OSD_SYSTEMID_LEN)
> + return -EINVAL;
> memcpy(odi->systemid, dt_dev->systemid, odi->systemid_len);
>
> odi->osdname_len = le32_to_cpu(dt_dev->osdname_len);
Hi Dan
I was going over this code and for the life of me I can't remember
why I have dt_dev->systemid_len at all. The ->systemid field
is just a constant 20 bytes buffer that is always there. at all
ends of the spectrum. (Including user-mode mkfs.exofs)
I think my thought was that dt_dev->systemid_len could be
either 20 or zero, for ignoring it.
I think I'd like something like:
- memcpy(odi->systemid, dt_dev->systemid, odi->systemid_len);
+ if (likely(odi->systemid_len))
+ memcpy(odi->systemid, dt_dev->systemid, OSD_SYSTEMID_LEN);
Which should also make the static checkers happy. What do you think?
Thanks
Boaz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
