Return-path: Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175]:54199 "EHLO mail-we0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751701AbaEaO53 (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 May 2014 10:57:29 -0400 Received: by mail-we0-f175.google.com with SMTP id p10so3229317wes.20 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 07:57:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5389EDD4.9050808@gmail.com> (sfid-20140531_165733_089994_F725666F) Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 15:57:24 +0100 From: Malcolm Priestley MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dan Carpenter CC: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, kbuild@01.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [kbuild] [PATCH] staging: vt6656: Fix vnt_rf_table_download __builtin_memcpy() addr* too small (3 vs 64). References: <1401541767-2940-1-git-send-email-tvboxspy@gmail.com> <20140531133839.GJ17724@mwanda> <20140531141115.GK17724@mwanda> In-Reply-To: <20140531141115.GK17724@mwanda> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 31/05/14 15:11, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 04:42:02PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: >> On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 02:09:27PM +0100, Malcolm Priestley wrote: >>> Fix following errors >>> drivers/staging/vt6656/rf.c:1060 vnt_rf_table_download() error: __builtin_memcpy() 'addr2' too small (3 vs 64) >>> drivers/staging/vt6656/rf.c:1078 vnt_rf_table_download() error: __builtin_memcpy() 'addr3' too small (3 vs 64) >>> drivers/staging/vt6656/rf.c:1094 vnt_rf_table_download() error: __builtin_memcpy() 'addr1' too small (3 vs 48) >>> drivers/staging/vt6656/rf.c:1108 vnt_rf_table_download() error: __builtin_memcpy() 'addr2' too small (3 vs 64) >>> >> > > Btw, the 3 here is a bug in Smatch... I will fix that. You shouldn't > have to work around that like this. I'm sorry for the confusion. My > only question when I reported the Smatch warning was about where we got > the 64. > 64 is the maximum that can be sent out at any one time so it must be from length. array could be reduced to 64. 3 is the element size of the tables, so the pointer should really point to the whole table. Regards Malcolm