From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dmi: fix date handling in dmi_get_year() Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 08:11:28 -0400 Message-ID: <4A87F770.7060008@pobox.com> References: <4A87F512.3080802@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:41832 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754094AbZHPMLk (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Aug 2009 08:11:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4A87F512.3080802@kernel.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo , Andrew Morton Cc: Sandor Bodo-Merle , "Huang, Shane" , ide Tejun Heo wrote: > Year parsing in dmi_get_year() had the following two bugs. > > * "00" is treated as invalid instead of 2000 because zero return from > simple_strtoul() is treated as error. > > * "0N" where N >= 8 is treated as invalid of 200N because the leading > 0 is considered to specify octal. > > Fix the above two bugs by using endptr to detect invalid number and > forcing decimal. > > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo > --- > While trying to implement dmi_get_date(), spotted two bugs in the > current dmi_get_year(). Tricky date strings. ;-P > > I think it would be safer to postpone this and the next patch for the > next merge window. There's no reported case of these bugs causing > problems yet, so no reason to risk behavior change at this stage. If > nobody objects, it would be easiest to push this through > libata-dev#upstream. > > Thanks. > > drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Patchset looks good to me... To make life easy, I would prefer to carry patches 1-2 in libata-dev#upstream, as well as patches 3-4. If there are objections to that plan from anyone, speak now... :) Jeff