On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 03:46:47PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2017-03-27 15:06, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:17:48PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >> Comparing a size_t with less than zero is always false as size_t
> >> is unsigned. So, change the type of the variable to ssi
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 03:46:47PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2017-03-27 15:06, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:17:48PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >> Comparing a size_t with less than zero is always false as size_t
> >> is unsigned. So, change the type of the variable to ssi
On 2017-03-27 15:06, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:17:48PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Comparing a size_t with less than zero is always false as size_t
>> is unsigned. So, change the type of the variable to ssize_t and
>> replicate the size check from mux_configure_channel() int
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:17:48PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Comparing a size_t with less than zero is always false as size_t
> is unsigned. So, change the type of the variable to ssize_t and
> replicate the size check from mux_configure_channel() into
> mux_write_ext_info() thus ensuring that th
Comparing a size_t with less than zero is always false as size_t
is unsigned. So, change the type of the variable to ssize_t and
replicate the size check from mux_configure_channel() into
mux_write_ext_info() thus ensuring that the size will fit in the
ssize_t variable.
Detected by CoverityScan, C
5 matches
Mail list logo
