Re: [PATCH] staging: atomisp: fix heap buffer overflow in framebuffer conversion

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>]

On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 01:31:19PM +0100, johannes.goede@oss.qualcomm.com wrote:
> On 11-Feb-26 12:54, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 12:50:18PM +0100, johannes.goede@oss.qualcomm.com wrote:
> >> On 11-Feb-26 12:39, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 12:28:35PM +0100, johannes.goede@oss.qualcomm.com wrote:
> >>>> On 11-Feb-26 09:11, Sakari Ailus wrote:

...

> >>>> This will cause a bunch of code to turn into dead code, but I would
> >>>> like to keep that code around since when we add support for
> >>>> a parameter buffer queue that code can serve as an example how to send
> >>>> parameters to the ISP.
> >>>
> >>> But it's forever in the Git index, we can remove it, so it's just matter
> >>> of convenience to keep it in a working copy (tree). That being said,
> >>> I would rather drop the dead code to avoid a stream of not-so-useful
> >>> white space, style, and similar cleanups.
> >>
> >> That is a good point, dropping some of the dead-code stemming
> >> from this is fine with me.
> >>
> >> We should probably stop pruning dead code when we get
> >> deep into the helpers to pack things into fw specific
> >> formats.
> > 
> > Either works for me, however the actual IOCTL handling related code
> > contains less redundancy than the rest of the driver. When it comes to this
> > patch, I'd keep the changes small allow easy backporting.
> 
> Ack, as said we can start with a patch just dropping the
> default ioctl handler. That should be easy to backport.
> 
> Removing some of the then unused functions can be done as
> followup patches.

I am on the same page.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko