Am 08.01.2015 11:07, schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> The "i" variable is used as an offset into both the dev->vfd[] and the
> dev->devtype->vdevs[] arrays. The second array is smaller so we should
> use that as a limit instead of ARRAY_SIZE(dev->vfd). Also the original
> check was off by one.
>
> We should use a format string as well in case the ->name has any funny
> characters and also to stop static checkers from complaining.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/coda/coda-common.c b/drivers/media/platform/coda/coda-common.c
> index 39330a7..5dd6cae 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/platform/coda/coda-common.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/coda/coda-common.c
> @@ -1844,10 +1844,11 @@ static int coda_register_device(struct coda_dev *dev, int i)
> {
> struct video_device *vfd = &dev->vfd[i];
>
> - if (i > ARRAY_SIZE(dev->vfd))
> + if (i >= dev->devtype->num_vdevs)
> return -EINVAL;
hi,
just a minor question. if i can not be trusted, i feel you should move the
array access:
struct video_device *vfd = &dev->vfd[i];
after the check
i >= dev->devtype->num_vdevs
at least that would improve the readability by not trigger my internal alarm
"check after access"
re,
wh
> - snprintf(vfd->name, sizeof(vfd->name), dev->devtype->vdevs[i]->name);
> + snprintf(vfd->name, sizeof(vfd->name), "%s",
> + dev->devtype->vdevs[i]->name);
> vfd->fops = &coda_fops;
> vfd->ioctl_ops = &coda_ioctl_ops;
> vfd->release = video_device_release_empty,
> --
> 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
>
--
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
