On 02/24/2015 09:01 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:20:33 +0200
> Panu Matilainen <pmatilai at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> The tool is technically correct, even if loss of precision might be
>> unlikely to occur in this context
>
> Overflow is not there in the code.
> That is why I said "shooting Unicorns"; this is all about
> about fixing bugs that don't exist because there is nothing there
> in the real world.
>
> In this code buffer is always something normal in size and does
> not exceed 2^32-1.
Oh, if the tool is complaining about fixed-size buffers then yeah the
the tool is being silly, sorry I didn't actually look up the cases.
- Panu -
