Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030335AbWJCRI0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Oct 2006 13:08:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030334AbWJCRI0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Oct 2006 13:08:26 -0400 Received: from gundega.hpl.hp.com ([192.6.19.190]:58612 "EHLO gundega.hpl.hp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030336AbWJCRIY (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Oct 2006 13:08:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 10:07:51 -0700 To: Samuel Tardieu 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() Message-ID: <20061003170751.GG17252@bougret.hpl.hp.com> Reply-To: jt@hpl.hp.com References: <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> <2006-10-03-18-45-35+trackit+sam@rfc1149.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2006-10-03-18-45-35+trackit+sam@rfc1149.net> Organisation: HP Labs Palo Alto Address: HP Labs, 1U-17, 1501 Page Mill road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA. E-mail: jt@hpl.hp.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: Jean Tourrilhes X-HPL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-HPL-MailScanner-From: jt@hpl.hp.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1291 Lines: 35 On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 06:45:35PM +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote: > 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) Yep, that one is a bug. Thanks ! > Sam Jean - 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/