Hi,
Rumor has it that on Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 11:07:31AM -0600 Matthew Wilcox said:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 12:34:56PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > Does anyone object to the patch below? It would help at least one person;
> > I'm concerned that it might cause trouble somewhere else.
>
> > @@ -526,6 +519,12 @@ static int scsi_probe_lun(struct scsi_de
> > if (response_len > 255)
> > response_len = first_inquiry_len; /* sanity */
> >
> > + /* Sanitize the Vendor, Product, and Revision fields. */
> > + for (i = 8; i < 36; ++i) {
> > + if (inq_result[i] < 0x20 || inq_result[i] > 0x7e)
> > + inq_result[i] = ' ';
> > + }
> > +
> > /*
>
> If we have one non-printable character, should we not overwrite all
> subsequent characters with spaces? I'm concerned that they may
> NUL-terminate a string, then the remnants be garbage.
I wouldn't make an exception for NUL. Trying to guess that the device
vendor really meant to NUL-terminate does not seem right to me.
Plus it will hide out of spec devices more than "spacing" unprintable
characters.
...
> This of course begs the questions:
> - Do we want to mangle the inquiry return like this?
> - Should we simply copy out the strings from the raw inquiry result, and
> fix them at copy time
This is probably better, at the expense of some space though.
FWIW,
Phil
--
Philip R. Auld, Ph.D. Egenera, Inc.
Software Architect 165 Forest St.
(508) 858-2628 Marlboro, MA 01752
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
