At Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:30:37 -0700,
Mark Gross wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 10:57:51AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > Fix possible array overflow:
> >
> > drivers/pci/intel-iommu.c: In function ‘dmar_get_fault_reason’:
> > drivers/pci/intel-iommu.c:753: warning: array subscript is above array
> > bounds
> > drivers/pci/intel-iommu.c: In function ‘iommu_page_fault’:
> > drivers/pci/intel-iommu.c:753: warning: array subscript is above array
> > bounds
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > ---
> > drivers/pci/intel-iommu.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/intel-iommu.c b/drivers/pci/intel-iommu.c
> > index b3d7031..e4b0a0d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/intel-iommu.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/intel-iommu.c
> > @@ -749,8 +749,8 @@ static char *fault_reason_strings[] =
> >
> > char *dmar_get_fault_reason(u8 fault_reason)
> > {
> > - if (fault_reason > MAX_FAULT_REASON_IDX)
> > - return fault_reason_strings[MAX_FAULT_REASON_IDX];
> > + if (fault_reason >= MAX_FAULT_REASON_IDX)
> > + return fault_reason_strings[MAX_FAULT_REASON_IDX - 1];
>
> This looks like what the code meant to implement.
I think not. The size of fault_reason_strings[] is
MAX_FAULT_REASON_IDX, not + 1. So gcc warning is correct.
Maybe the main problem is that the constant name is confusing...
Takashi
> I guess future
> hardware may be able to generate more types of faults, otherwise I'd put
> a BUG here.
>
> --mgross
>
>
> > else
> > return fault_reason_strings[fault_reason];
> > }
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
