From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 434A07E
	for <llvm@lists.linux.dev>; Tue, 20 Dec 2022 20:49:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6483BC433D2;
	Tue, 20 Dec 2022 20:49:06 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org;
	s=k20201202; t=1671569346;
	bh=b1QzGcjyJ0SvKkss0XqmKPLN8odBoTy+KeVrQOrrXK4=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From;
	b=q2D+9hApS5qFTuwdr5pWtGo0CpBAbnAD5jCn6WMhAftx9E3EqFguuIbA53biGX5YU
	 MVMvALX6NnqVuWz4YoCJJghO9qNZ7ZuMMBjUKfaGlwa9RzOjcl1xXukpZkfw8pat6V
	 d0SbTBn82Egp+5aQ4A4Q0iM6CZHA49TW5PG0Jt1LAUoTPWCtYALqPUckXTpZ8nWCVE
	 2CZv2dSLEZiiAYPpLgtoNjLYbTt7FQpRt/4or4KYxdlDLm0vrseuoOi8Bx0Kdxr36q
	 B4ho16vYMs+IvXE1gDQMczGwTMZAiBZIs1uehTIg0WlQQ4AvGJyp0sVHIVzW+YfWLO
	 RY9IDaFIh/8uQ==
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2022 13:49:04 -0700
From: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
To: Alvaro Karsz <alvaro.karsz@solid-run.com>
Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	bhelgaas@google.com, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>, llvm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3 v6] virtio: vdpa: new SolidNET DPU driver.
Message-ID: <Y6IfwHicoMojJrIB@dev-arch.thelio-3990X>
References: <20221219083511.73205-1-alvaro.karsz@solid-run.com>
 <20221219083511.73205-4-alvaro.karsz@solid-run.com>
 <Y6HjpvDfIusAz2uS@dev-arch.thelio-3990X>
 <CAJs=3_B7WoERAiXPyvz=6d7O5rcwXMfWZJFsi_ds-OAemvfcgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: llvm@lists.linux.dev
List-Id: <llvm.lists.linux.dev>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:llvm+subscribe@lists.linux.dev>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:llvm+unsubscribe@lists.linux.dev>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJs=3_B7WoERAiXPyvz=6d7O5rcwXMfWZJFsi_ds-OAemvfcgQ@mail.gmail.com>

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?

That is up to Michael at the end of the day (each maintainer handles
their tree differently) but I would recommend sending a follow up fix,
as it is easy to fold it in if they want to rebase the tree for it or
just take it as a fix.

Thanks for the quick triage and response!

Cheers,
Nathan