On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 01:49:04PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > 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 on top is ok but post soon please as i need to send this to Linus. -- MST _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
