On 12/07/12 at 09:18am, Dan Carpenter wrote: > __IFLA_BRPORT_MAX is one larger than IFLA_BRPORT_MAX. We pass > IFLA_BRPORT_MAX to nla_parse_nested() so we need IFLA_BRPORT_MAX + 1 > elements. Also Smatch complains that we read past the end of the array > when in br_set_port_flag() when it's called with IFLA_BRPORT_FAST_LEAVE. > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Only needed in linux-next. > > diff --git a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c > index 850b7d1..cfc5cfe 100644 > --- a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c > +++ b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c > @@ -239,7 +239,7 @@ int br_setlink(struct net_device *dev, struct nlmsghdr *nlh) > struct ifinfomsg *ifm; > struct nlattr *protinfo; > struct net_bridge_port *p; > - struct nlattr *tb[IFLA_BRPORT_MAX]; > + struct nlattr *tb[__IFLA_BRPORT_MAX]; > int err; > > ifm = nlmsg_data(nlh); I know it's nitpicking but could you use IFLA_BRPORT_MAX+1 for consistency? -- 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
