From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752757AbYIWJ3g (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Sep 2008 05:29:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750900AbYIWJ31 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Sep 2008 05:29:27 -0400 Received: from h155.mvista.com ([63.81.120.155]:31269 "EHLO imap.sh.mvista.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750732AbYIWJ30 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Sep 2008 05:29:26 -0400 Message-ID: <48D8B6ED.6020407@ru.mvista.com> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:29:17 +0400 From: Sergei Shtylyov User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: petkovbb@gmail.com, Sergei Shtylyov , Mark de Wever , Gadi Oxman , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] IDE-TAPE NULL terminate strings. References: <20080921185138.GA16310@localhost> <48D79ABD.8060805@ru.mvista.com> <9ea470500809220656j6dfcf4c9q7a5a4185481ec994@mail.gmail.com> <20080922204129.GA3495@localhost> <48D80949.4080901@ru.mvista.com> <20080923074845.GB5656@gollum.tnic> In-Reply-To: <20080923074845.GB5656@gollum.tnic> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello. Borislav Petkov wrote: >>> Only not sure whether the static is the best solution, the following >>> patch also works, by zeroing the memory as you suggested. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Mark de Wever >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/ide/ide-tape.c b/drivers/ide/ide-tape.c >>> index 1bce84b..c41f5b1 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/ide/ide-tape.c >>> +++ b/drivers/ide/ide-tape.c >>> @@ -2338,7 +2338,7 @@ static void idetape_get_inquiry_results(ide_drive_t *drive) >>> { >>> idetape_tape_t *tape = drive->driver_data; >>> struct ide_atapi_pc pc; >>> - char fw_rev[6], vendor_id[10], product_id[18]; >>> + char fw_rev[6] = {'\0'}, vendor_id[10] = {'\0'}, product_id[18] = {'\0'}; >>> >>> >> Do you realize how much *absolutely unnecessary* code will this bring >> in? This is certainly worse than your initial patch (if it was correct). >> > > Yep, Sergei's right. Both of our patches are dumb. > > >> Ugh, looks like I'll have t submit the patch myself to stop this ugliness... >> > > Is this what you had in mind? > Sure. WBR, Sergei