On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 03:37:36PM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: > On 10/31/14 15:26, Dan Carpenter wrote: > >On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 03:18:27PM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: > >>Understood. Not sure what the motivation is to mistrust endian more. > > > >Endian data tends to come from suspicious places such as disk images, > >usb devices, and networks. > > > >>Simply because there could be conversion errors? Anyway, the main > >>question is whether pmkid_len is always between 0 and > >>WLAN_PMKID_LEN. As far as I know it is. We could 1) add additional > >>checks here, 2) make pmkid_len of u32 type, or 3) just mention the > >>(sure) assumption in a comment. I would prefer option 2) or 3). > > > >I would prefer 2. Static checker warnings are a pain. > > Now who has been tinkering on static checkers ;-) Anyway, option 2) > it is. Who will do the patch? :-p Actually, in the end making it unsigned doesn't make sense because we don't check for upper bound either. Let's just forget about it. regards, dan carpenter -- 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
