2014-06-11 7:45 GMT+02:00 Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:48:35PM +0200, Rickard Strandqvist wrote: >> Hi >> >> True! >> Sorry :-( >> >> But then one would either operate strcpy outright. >> >> Or use strlcpy then the code would be: >> >> /* strlcpy() handles not include \0 */ >> len = strlcpy(busid, buf + 4, BUSID_SIZE); >> >> /* busid needs to include \0 termination */ >> if (!(len < BUSID_SIZE)) > > I don't like this condition. Just say (len >= BUSID_SIZE). The > comments here are obvious and could be left out. > >> return -EINVAL; > > I don't have strong feelings about a cleanup patch. But I think that > cppcheck is not being very sofisticated here with the NUL termination > warning so we should not go out of our way to try to silence the > warning. > > regards, > dan carpenter > Hi Dan I agree that you should not do patches just to silence a static control program. Concerning (len >= BUSID_SIZE) I agree! But I usually try to change as little as possible in the patches I do. But perhaps I should not think that way. Kind regards Rickard Strandqvist -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
