From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] blktap2: update connection handling to
 fix build with gcc5
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:52:44 +0100
Message-ID: <1437468764.17368.83.camel@citrix.com>
References: <1437468128-591-1-git-send-email-olaf@aepfle.de>
	<55AE236D020000780009386A@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <55AE236D020000780009386A@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 02:48 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 21.07.15 at 10:42, <olaf@aepfle.de> wrote:
> > --- a/tools/blktap2/drivers/block-log.c
> > +++ b/tools/blktap2/drivers/block-log.c
> > @@ -359,7 +359,7 @@ static int ctl_close_sock(struct tdlog_state* s, int fd)
> >  {
> >    int i;
> >  
> > -  for (i = 0; i < s->connected; i++) {
> > +  for (i = 0; i < s->connected && i < MAX_CONNECTIONS; i++) {
> >      if (s->connections[i].fd == fd) {
> >        tapdisk_server_unregister_event(s->connections[i].id);
> >        close(s->connections[i].fd);
> > @@ -545,7 +545,7 @@ static inline int ctl_find_connection(struct tdlog_state *s, event_id_t id)
> >  {
> >    int i;
> >  
> > -  for (i = 0; i < s->connected; i++)
> > +  for (i = 0; i < s->connected && i < MAX_CONNECTIONS; i++)
> >      if (s->connections[i].id == id)
> >        return s->connections[i].fd;
> >  
> 
> Which now makes the reader (wrongly) imply that s->connected
> might be equal to or larger than MAX_CONNECTIONS.

I was just thinking that perhaps either an assert() or an:
        if ( s->connected >= MAX_CONNECTIONS ) {
        	log
        	return error
        }
might be more appropriate.

Ian.