From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S947281AbXHMQQs (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:16:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S947330AbXHMPBL (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:01:11 -0400 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.234]:4362 "EHLO wx-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S937830AbXHMPBH (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:01:07 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=n8lbPQBKcCYfBEdmtCI/oTKv6jrHus3qxjh1aAyrePwOiBWIPgGtvdgDTEzSLS6wyOXDNd2CZsOEFeUADz0/v1Xm8PccPfswjpJJY2egZjVyJz1E3IvHq1RVknQOJ057mHSbR2pLXdKgiAbeBwGnuHIFjPdN1GlwVwsB0uAfQIU= Message-ID: <9a8748490708130801o682d1be4je076bcd7a0682def@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:01:05 +0200 From: "Jesper Juhl" To: James.Smart@emulex.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6][RESEND] Emulex FC HBA driver: fix overflow of statically allocated array Cc: "Andrew Morton" , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, "James Bottomley" In-Reply-To: <46C0584E.5060906@emulex.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200708130016.11281.jesper.juhl@gmail.com> <200708130021.07068.jesper.juhl@gmail.com> <46C038E3.5090204@emulex.com> <9a8748490708130415j790d6e49y6ae12ca8dad780f2@mail.gmail.com> <46C0584E.5060906@emulex.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 13/08/07, James Smart wrote: > Ok.... here's what happened, > > - We changed the define so that it matched what we are using. We never configure > more than 4 HBQ, thus the index will never be beyond 0-3. The if-check is actually > innoculous. Given that the change wasn't your patch, we didn't include you as > the author. > And that's not a problem. I only mentioned it to explain how I searched for the patch before I resend it. > - Coding-wise, you are right, we still didn't fix the range check. > > Since this really is just something to keep the tools happy - I'll recind the NACK. > I'll worry about simply removing this if-check later... > > James/Andrew, accept this patch - ACK. > -- Jesper Juhl Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html