On 09/25/2017 11:09 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 10:25:01AM -0400, John Johansen wrote: >> On 09/01/2017 04:52 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote: >>> This patch has no effect on runtime. >>> >>> The sig_map[] array has MAXMAPPED_SIG (35) members so my static checker >>> complains that the <= should be <. But in this case it's not possible >>> for "sig" to be more than 31 because of the "else if (sig >= SIGRTMIN)" >>> condition since SIGRTMIN is 32. The last three elements, 32-34, of >>> sig_map[] are empty so this code works as designed. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> diff --git a/security/apparmor/ipc.c b/security/apparmor/ipc.c >>> index 66fb9ede9447..5091c78062e4 100644 >>> --- a/security/apparmor/ipc.c >>> +++ b/security/apparmor/ipc.c >>> @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ static inline int map_signal_num(int sig) >>> return SIGUNKNOWN; >>> else if (sig >= SIGRTMIN) >>> return sig - SIGRTMIN + 128; /* rt sigs mapped to 128 */ >>> - else if (sig <= MAXMAPPED_SIG) >>> + else if (sig < MAXMAPPED_SIG) >>> return sig_map[sig]; >>> return SIGUNKNOWN; >>> } >>> >> >> Colin King beat you to this one, its in apparmor-next > > apparmor doesn't seem to be in linux-next at all. Why is that? > hrmmm, apparmor is pulled in via security-next merges, but you are right apparmor-next isn't being merged and we should set that up. -- 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
