On 07/11/2013 01:59 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Sat, 2013-06-29 at 15:58 -0700, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Should help better debug dodgy APs and such.
This isn't a bad idea, but I think instead of storing the message:
@@ -110,6 +110,7 @@ struct ieee80211_bss {
/* Keep track of what bits of information we have valid info for. */
u8 valid_data;
+ char corrupt_elems_msg[80];
you should store a "what's bad" type field and the broken IE number or
so, to reduce memory usage
I thought of this, but the problem is then you cannot tell the details
(for instance the actual lengths when length is bad, the ID that is duplicated, etc).
I figure if we are going to provide the info to the user, we might as well
be specific about it.
+ snprintf(elems->parse_err_msg,
+ sizeof(elems->parse_err_msg),
+ "seen id: %i already", id);
Your snprintf() usage is also unsafe.
What is unsafe about it?
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
