On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 09:57:08AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> So, after the third patch, the strlen() goes away any way you do this.
> The code ends up looking the same (the while() check is against the
> max-length variable alone).
True story.
> I'm happy to rewrite this to have a different
Moving over to the actual patch we're talking about...
On 12/22/2015 02:52 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> @@ -37,11 +39,14 @@ int cmdline_find_option_bool(const char
> if (!cmdline)
> return -1; /* No command line */
>
> - len = min_t(int, strlen(cmdline),
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 02:52:38PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> From: Dave Hansen
>
> The x86 early command line parsing in cmdline_find_option_bool()
> is buggy. If it matches a specified 'option' all the way to
> the end of the command-line, it will consider it a match.
>
> For instance,
>
Moving over to the actual patch we're talking about...
On 12/22/2015 02:52 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> @@ -37,11 +39,14 @@ int cmdline_find_option_bool(const char
> if (!cmdline)
> return -1; /* No command line */
>
> - len = min_t(int, strlen(cmdline),
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 09:57:08AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> So, after the third patch, the strlen() goes away any way you do this.
> The code ends up looking the same (the while() check is against the
> max-length variable alone).
True story.
> I'm happy to rewrite this to have a different
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 02:52:38PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> From: Dave Hansen
>
> The x86 early command line parsing in cmdline_find_option_bool()
> is buggy. If it matches a specified 'option' all the way to
> the end of the command-line, it will consider it
On 01/05/2016 10:35 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 02:52:38PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> From: Dave Hansen
>> The x86 early command line parsing in cmdline_find_option_bool()
>> is buggy. If it matches a specified 'option' all the way to
>> the end of the command-line, it
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 02:52:38PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> From: Dave Hansen
>
> The x86 early command line parsing in cmdline_find_option_bool()
> is buggy. If it matches a specified 'option' all the way to
> the end of the command-line, it will consider it a match.
>
> For instance,
>
On 01/05/2016 10:35 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 02:52:38PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> From: Dave Hansen
>> The x86 early command line parsing in cmdline_find_option_bool()
>> is buggy. If it matches a specified 'option' all the way to
>>
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 02:52:38PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> From: Dave Hansen
>
> The x86 early command line parsing in cmdline_find_option_bool()
> is buggy. If it matches a specified 'option' all the way to
> the end of the command-line, it will consider it
From: Dave Hansen
The x86 early command line parsing in cmdline_find_option_bool()
is buggy. If it matches a specified 'option' all the way to
the end of the command-line, it will consider it a match.
For instance,
cmdline = "foo";
cmdline_find_option_bool(cmdline, "fool");
From: Dave Hansen
The x86 early command line parsing in cmdline_find_option_bool()
is buggy. If it matches a specified 'option' all the way to
the end of the command-line, it will consider it a match.
For instance,
cmdline = "foo";
12 matches
Mail list logo