Re: [patch] edac: sb_edac: add sanity check to silence static checker

[walter harms]

Am 01.11.2011 07:28, schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> I assume the the check on if (limit <= prv) prevents n_tads from
> actually reaching MAX_TAD.  The problem with that is that it relies
> on the hardware returning the right value and Smatch complains that
> if it doesn't we could have a buffer overflow.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Feel free to ignore this patch if you want.  I don't have very stong
> feelings about this either way.
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/edac/sb_edac.c b/drivers/edac/sb_edac.c
> index 7a402bf..ebf386c 100644
> --- a/drivers/edac/sb_edac.c
> +++ b/drivers/edac/sb_edac.c
> @@ -970,6 +970,12 @@ static int get_memory_error_data(struct mem_ctl_info *mci,
>  			break;
>  		prv = limit;
>  	}
> +	if (n_tads == MAX_TAD) {
> +		sprintf(msg, "Could not discover the memory channel");

why the sprintf() ? can you not simply:
	edac_mc_handle_ce_no_info(mci,"Could not discover the memory channel");
		
	re,
 	 wh
> +		edac_mc_handle_ce_no_info(mci, msg);
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}
> +
>  	ch_way = TAD_CH(reg) + 1;
>  	sck_way = TAD_SOCK(reg) + 1;
>  	/*
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/