Am 07.12.2012 19:53, schrieb Dan Carpenter: > On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 05:07:24PM +0100, walter harms wrote: >> >> >> Am 07.12.2012 12:10, schrieb Dan Carpenter: >>> 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. >>> >> >> >> >> I have no clue why nla_parse_nested() need IFLA_BRPORT_MAX elements. >> but the majory of loop look like >> for(i=0;i<max;++) >> most programmers will think this way. >> So it seems the place to fix is nla_parse_nested(). >> doing not so is asking for trouble (in the long run). >> At least this function needs a big warning label that (max-1) >> is actually needed. >> > > Yeah, nla_parse_nested() is actually documented already. > documenting unexspected behavier is not as much helpfull as changing it. just my 2 cents, wh -- 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
