From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 018A9C4332F for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2022 06:41:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229472AbiLUGlM (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Dec 2022 01:41:12 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45914 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229448AbiLUGlL (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Dec 2022 01:41:11 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 596E3A448 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2022 22:40:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1671604823; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=6GIXJfP6lLbkNCudO+mG156mH9R13EdyawfZqeVfjt4=; b=jUWB1gV4+rdWLZcNl0DLlWePGgyTub5ikvr7dFZP6QRrNuMYK89z+feA+Z8KTL9voSKPtB Chbne5/2s34gCdNsrRW/66H5xuUMBoE20z5muA4Tu0Rmmj7ZZaCyhB856FbZF/+ymD6COL C7DDCuFQ2oU+8BtXDzOQIOUJ21h49Gs= Received: from mail-qv1-f69.google.com (mail-qv1-f69.google.com [209.85.219.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-27-WgnfqmekOBykyV9DLUfH-A-1; Wed, 21 Dec 2022 01:40:22 -0500 X-MC-Unique: WgnfqmekOBykyV9DLUfH-A-1 Received: by mail-qv1-f69.google.com with SMTP id o13-20020a056214108d00b004c6fb4f16dcso8186423qvr.6 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2022 22:40:22 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=6GIXJfP6lLbkNCudO+mG156mH9R13EdyawfZqeVfjt4=; b=LmOryzqMj0uDJ9DfY3xsaSo94fO50aGdi3F5SCsWhkcXJ5bTlrVeo+hG4bqsFobYok VB+4STXn1yZoBZXF6np0jmhjGZM/iGIoDSC/jhEJTvnArjtnsQY1dyKUHqLAcjuBWeES kZENsbh2cth758rW6DWZRQIJCRO0895/69nB7VKt9de9YZxg3XQotJeyQ056pr2cTSDx MJqQRXQLEoQTzRXVXiL6hyiEz7MiFVcCYM5OgGbCR0u94znh81ZD2x2W0eXbmooB5j5L IDXwZ384bVIPV0h0G1eULzWcXDPtmrRs7QgA6IUyRBRFSWQjXZB7WCq0bblolRKZUuRt K1EQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2ko3icRTQ7V2kKt8vN5zAfQCvFd60TeQjclOIV072BOj9xlFnWVG zk1LjklZ/x5iTFNZ/bwbekuEBgd8oPEDGL8Mn5mIxRdCfRN/krdlr4cnHzfCgy803Kow2V0l+1G WNiY09x7hg8bqWqbTzeqA X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7542:0:b0:3ab:28ea:d849 with SMTP id b2-20020ac87542000000b003ab28ead849mr890787qtr.10.1671604821279; Tue, 20 Dec 2022 22:40:21 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXvY5Z6Nk+cW9c4QcsX8MAS54V9yZ+Jd55Y6+e6sz97Dtit25nevBX+Xt+gWUMZeniF5ZgyfTA== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7542:0:b0:3ab:28ea:d849 with SMTP id b2-20020ac87542000000b003ab28ead849mr890776qtr.10.1671604821067; Tue, 20 Dec 2022 22:40:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from redhat.com ([37.19.199.117]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t15-20020ac86a0f000000b0039cc64bcb53sm8589408qtr.27.2022.12.20.22.40.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 20 Dec 2022 22:40:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2022 01:40:15 -0500 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Alvaro Karsz Cc: Nathan Chancellor , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, bhelgaas@google.com, Jason Wang , Jean Delvare , Guenter Roeck , llvm@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3 v6] virtio: vdpa: new SolidNET DPU driver. Message-ID: <20221221013907-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20221219083511.73205-1-alvaro.karsz@solid-run.com> <20221219083511.73205-4-alvaro.karsz@solid-run.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 06:46:20PM +0200, Alvaro Karsz wrote: > Hi Nathan, > > > This does not appear to be a false positive but what was the intent > > here? Should the local name variables increase their length or should > > the buffer length be reduced? > > You're right, the local name variables and snprintf argument don't match. > Thanks for noticing. > I think that we should increase the name variables to be > SNET_NAME_SIZE bytes long. > > How should I proceed from here? > Should I create a new version for this patch, or should I fix it in a > follow up patch? > > Thanks, > Alvaro Please post a follow-up ASAP. I can squash myself if I rebase. Thanks! -- MST