On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 04:00:35PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> While there is no longer a hard limit to the number of sensor of a
> given type per chip, I feel a little uncomfortable having no limit at
> all on the amount of memory we may try to allocate. Add an arbitrary
> safety limit so that a design error or a bug in a hwmon driver can't
> result into an insane memory allocation.
> ---
> Does anyone have an opinion on this? No limit at all makes me feel bad,
> but I don't like arbitrary limits either. So I'm really not sure what
> is the best option here.
>
> lib/sysfs.c | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> --- lm-sensors.orig/lib/sysfs.c 2014-01-29 15:44:03.544339229 +0100
> +++ lm-sensors/lib/sysfs.c 2014-01-29 15:59:50.074019877 +0100
> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
> /*
> sysfs.c - Part of libsensors, a library for reading Linux sensor data
> Copyright (c) 2005 Mark M. Hoffman <mhoffman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> - Copyright (C) 2007-2010 Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> + Copyright (C) 2007-2014 Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
> @@ -468,8 +468,9 @@ static int sensors_read_dynamic_chip(sen
> break;
> }
>
> - /* Skip invalid entries */
> - if (nr < 0) {
> + /* Skip invalid entries. The high limit is arbitrary, we just
> + don't want to allocate an insane amount of memory. */
> + if (nr < 0 || nr >= 8192) {
Hi Jean,
makes sense, and good idea.
Does that mean the limit is 8191 sensors per type ? May be a bit high.
I'd be more restrictive and go with something like 1024.
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
