On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 01:56:58PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>
> Here's a fix for the cea_array size. Does it silence the static checker?
>
No.
> for (i = specs->modedb_len + num; i < specs->modedb_len + num + svd_n; i++) {
> int idx = svd[i - specs->modedb_len - num];
> - if (!idx || idx > 63) {
> + if (!idx || idx > 64) {
> pr_warning("Reserved SVD code %d\n", idx);
> } else if (idx > ARRAY_SIZE(cea_modes) || !cea_modes[idx].xres) {
> pr_warning("Unimplemented SVD code %d\n", idx);
This static check ignores the value of "idx".
It is only looking at "idx > ARRAY_SIZE(cea_modes)" which is off by one
and "idx" is used as an index in "!cea_modes[idx].xres".
The thinking behind this static checker warnings is that off-by-one bugs
are an easy way to boost your patch count even if it's impossible to hit
them in real life. :) The value of "idx" is deliberately ignored.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
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
