On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 06:46:20PM +0200, Alvaro Karsz wrote: > Hi Nathan, > > > This does not appear to be a false positive but what was the intent > > here? Should the local name variables increase their length or should > > the buffer length be reduced? > > You're right, the local name variables and snprintf argument don't match. > Thanks for noticing. > I think that we should increase the name variables to be > SNET_NAME_SIZE bytes long. > > How should I proceed from here? > Should I create a new version for this patch, or should I fix it in a > follow up patch? That is up to Michael at the end of the day (each maintainer handles their tree differently) but I would recommend sending a follow up fix, as it is easy to fold it in if they want to rebase the tree for it or just take it as a fix. Thanks for the quick triage and response! Cheers, Nathan
