On 15/01/15 14:26, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 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".
Ah, right, I missed that in my patch. The check should obviously be
changed to:
if (idx >= ARRAY_SIZE(cea_modes)
But maybe it would be better to clean up the whole if statement to
remove the duplicate check. So in addition to increasing the cea_array size:
if (idx == 0 || idx >= ARRAY_SIZE(cea_modes)) {
pr_warning("Reserved SVD code %d\n", idx);
} else if (!cea_modes[idx].xres) {
pr_warning("Unimplemented SVD code %d\n", idx);
Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
