From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.71) id 1a2N2H-0005QW-Ke for mharc-qemu-trivial@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:42:17 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47853) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a2N2F-0005Nd-6m for qemu-trivial@nongnu.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:42:16 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a2N2E-0005Cf-GV for qemu-trivial@nongnu.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:42:15 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33120) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a2N2A-0005Bw-4Z; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:42:10 -0500 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86A84A92; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 17:42:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (ovpn-116-61.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.61]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tARHg7e5002780 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:42:09 -0500 Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0F5B0303F16C; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:42:07 +0100 (CET) From: Markus Armbruster To: Paolo Bonzini References: <1448626105-29540-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <87oaefzeuh.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <56586B7D.2040205@redhat.com> <877fl3v5fm.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <56588168.2070003@redhat.com> <87poyvpfqb.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <87h9k7nze2.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <56589313.80401@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:42:07 +0100 In-Reply-To: <56589313.80401@redhat.com> (Paolo Bonzini's message of "Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:29:55 +0100") Message-ID: <87two7jq4w.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.27 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.5] bt: fix two struct sizes X-BeenThere: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 17:42:16 -0000 Paolo Bonzini writes: > On 27/11/2015 18:08, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>> > evt_encrypt_change 4 5 >> Used in bt_hci_event_encrypt_change(). I figure it makes bt_hci_event() >> overrun the destination by one byte. > > Yes, and Coverity complains. > >> Kernel has >> >> struct hci_ev_encrypt_change { >> __u8 status; >> __le16 handle; >> __u8 encrypt; >> } __packed; >> >> You changed this one. Plausible, but I don't want to have my R-by on it >> all the same. > > Shall I proceed with this patch, just without R-by? Or only modify the > one where Coverity complains? I picked this one because it matches a > bluez patch. Yes, that seems to make the most sense. If you feel like it, add a sentence or two on the ones you don't fix to the commit message. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47842) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a2N2D-0005NY-Ju for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:42:14 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a2N2A-0005C2-9m for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:42:13 -0500 From: Markus Armbruster References: <1448626105-29540-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <87oaefzeuh.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <56586B7D.2040205@redhat.com> <877fl3v5fm.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <56588168.2070003@redhat.com> <87poyvpfqb.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <87h9k7nze2.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <56589313.80401@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:42:07 +0100 In-Reply-To: <56589313.80401@redhat.com> (Paolo Bonzini's message of "Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:29:55 +0100") Message-ID: <87two7jq4w.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.5] bt: fix two struct sizes List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Paolo Bonzini writes: > On 27/11/2015 18:08, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>> > evt_encrypt_change 4 5 >> Used in bt_hci_event_encrypt_change(). I figure it makes bt_hci_event() >> overrun the destination by one byte. > > Yes, and Coverity complains. > >> Kernel has >> >> struct hci_ev_encrypt_change { >> __u8 status; >> __le16 handle; >> __u8 encrypt; >> } __packed; >> >> You changed this one. Plausible, but I don't want to have my R-by on it >> all the same. > > Shall I proceed with this patch, just without R-by? Or only modify the > one where Coverity complains? I picked this one because it matches a > bluez patch. Yes, that seems to make the most sense. If you feel like it, add a sentence or two on the ones you don't fix to the commit message.