Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932276AbWJCQph (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Oct 2006 12:45:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932281AbWJCQph (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Oct 2006 12:45:37 -0400 Received: from anyanka.rfc1149.net ([81.56.47.149]:23781 "EHLO mail2.rfc1149.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932276AbWJCQpg (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Oct 2006 12:45:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:45:35 +0200 To: Jean Tourrilhes Cc: Pavel Roskin , "John W. Linville" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.18-mm2 - oops in cache_alloc_refill() References: <20060928014623.ccc9b885.akpm@osdl.org> <200609290319.k8T3JOwS005455@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20060928202931.dc324339.akpm@osdl.org> <200609291519.k8TFJfvw004256@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20060929124558.33ef6c75.akpm@osdl.org> <200609300001.k8U01sPI004389@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20060929182008.fee2a229.akpm@osdl.org> <20061002175245.GA14744@bougret.hpl.hp.com> <2006-10-03-17-58-31+trackit+sam@rfc1149.net> <20061003163415.GA17252@bougret.hpl.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061003163415.GA17252@bougret.hpl.hp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 From: Samuel Tardieu Organization: RFC 1149 (see http://www.rfc1149.net/) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-WWW: http://www.rfc1149.net/sam X-Jabber: (see http://www.jabber.org/) X-OpenPGP-Fingerprint: 79C0 AE3C CEA8 F17B 0EF1 45A5 F133 2241 1B80 ADE6 (see http://www.gnupg.org/) Message-Id: <2006-10-03-18-45-35+trackit+sam@rfc1149.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1139 Lines: 30 On 3/10, Jean Tourrilhes wrote: | > I suggest that you revert the memset() to IW_ESSID_MAX_SIZE+1 so that | > the last byte is cleared as well. Or am I missing something? | | No, that would bring back the slab/memory overflow we are | trying to get rid of. Then I am puzzled by the function declaration: static int orinoco_hw_get_essid(struct orinoco_private *priv, int *active, char buf[IW_ESSID_MAX_SIZE+1]) Do you mean that this function is called with a buf parameter which doesn't have the expected size? (as far as the function declaration is concerned) Shouldn't the declaration be changed to static int orinoco_hw_get_essid(struct orinoco_private *priv, int *active, char buf[IW_ESSID_MAX_SIZE]) then to reflect the reality? (it won't change the code but would be clearer from a documentation point of view) Sam - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/