Hello Xue.
On 20.09.19 21:45, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Use a 'skb_put_data()' variant instead of rewritting it.
> The __skb_put_data variant is safe here. It is obvious that the skb can
> not overflow. It has just been allocated a few lines above with the same
> 'len'.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr>
> ---
> drivers/net/ieee802154/mcr20a.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ieee802154/mcr20a.c b/drivers/net/ieee802154/mcr20a.c
> index 17f2300e63ee..8dc04e2590b1 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ieee802154/mcr20a.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ieee802154/mcr20a.c
> @@ -800,7 +800,7 @@ mcr20a_handle_rx_read_buf_complete(void *context)
> if (!skb)
> return;
>
> - memcpy(skb_put(skb, len), lp->rx_buf, len);
> + __skb_put_data(skb, lp->rx_buf, len);
> ieee802154_rx_irqsafe(lp->hw, skb, lp->rx_lqi[0]);
>
> print_hex_dump_debug("mcr20a rx: ", DUMP_PREFIX_OFFSET, 16, 1,
>
Could you please review and ACK this? If you are happy I will take it
through my tree.
regards
Stefan Schmidt
