Re: [PATCH 4/6][RESEND] Emulex FC HBA driver: fix overflow of statically allocated array

On 13/08/07, James Smart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok here's what happened, > > - We changed the define so that it matched what we are using. We never > configure >more than 4 HBQ, thus the index will never be beyond 0-3. The if-check is > actually >innoculous. Given that the

Re: [PATCH 4/6][RESEND] Emulex FC HBA driver: fix overflow of statically allocated array

Ok here's what happened, - We changed the define so that it matched what we are using. We never configure more than 4 HBQ, thus the index will never be beyond 0-3. The if-check is actually innoculous. Given that the change wasn't your patch, we didn't include you as the author. -

Re: [PATCH 4/6][RESEND] Emulex FC HBA driver: fix overflow of statically allocated array

On 13/08/07, James Smart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > NACK > > The fix is contained in our 8.2.2 sources recently posted and pushed by James > as part of his last scsi fixes. > I actually did look for it, but couldn't find any lpfc commits with me listed as author, so I assumed it had not been

Re: [PATCH 4/6][RESEND] Emulex FC HBA driver: fix overflow of statically allocated array

NACK The fix is contained in our 8.2.2 sources recently posted and pushed by James as part of his last scsi fixes. -- james s Jesper Juhl wrote: (previously send on 09-Aug-2007 20:47) Hi, The Coverity checker noticed that we may overrun a statically allocated array in

Re: [PATCH 4/6][RESEND] Emulex FC HBA driver: fix overflow of statically allocated array

NACK The fix is contained in our 8.2.2 sources recently posted and pushed by James as part of his last scsi fixes. -- james s Jesper Juhl wrote: (previously send on 09-Aug-2007 20:47) Hi, The Coverity checker noticed that we may overrun a statically allocated array in

Re: [PATCH 4/6][RESEND] Emulex FC HBA driver: fix overflow of statically allocated array

On 13/08/07, James Smart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NACK The fix is contained in our 8.2.2 sources recently posted and pushed by James as part of his last scsi fixes. I actually did look for it, but couldn't find any lpfc commits with me listed as author, so I assumed it had not been merged. I

Re: [PATCH 4/6][RESEND] Emulex FC HBA driver: fix overflow of statically allocated array

Ok here's what happened, - We changed the define so that it matched what we are using. We never configure more than 4 HBQ, thus the index will never be beyond 0-3. The if-check is actually innoculous. Given that the change wasn't your patch, we didn't include you as the author. -

Re: [PATCH 4/6][RESEND] Emulex FC HBA driver: fix overflow of statically allocated array

On 13/08/07, James Smart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok here's what happened, - We changed the define so that it matched what we are using. We never configure more than 4 HBQ, thus the index will never be beyond 0-3. The if-check is actually innoculous. Given that the change wasn't

[PATCH 4/6][RESEND] Emulex FC HBA driver: fix overflow of statically allocated array

(previously send on 09-Aug-2007 20:47) Hi, The Coverity checker noticed that we may overrun a statically allocated array in drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c::lpfc_sli_hbqbuf_find(). The case is this; In 'struct lpfc_hba' we have #define LPFC_MAX_HBQS 4 ... struct

[PATCH 4/6][RESEND] Emulex FC HBA driver: fix overflow of statically allocated array

(previously send on 09-Aug-2007 20:47) Hi, The Coverity checker noticed that we may overrun a statically allocated array in drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c::lpfc_sli_hbqbuf_find(). The case is this; In 'struct lpfc_hba' we have #define LPFC_MAX_HBQS 4 ... struct