On 6/22/20 11:22 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>
> On 19.06.20 00:22, Collin Walling wrote:
>> Rework the SCLP boundary check to account for different SCLP commands
>> (eventually) allowing different boundary sizes.
>>
>> Move the length check code into a separate function, and introduce a
On 19.06.20 00:22, Collin Walling wrote:
> Rework the SCLP boundary check to account for different SCLP commands
> (eventually) allowing different boundary sizes.
>
> Move the length check code into a separate function, and introduce a
> new function to determine the length of the read SCP
On 19.06.20 12:50, Janosch Frank wrote:
> On 6/19/20 12:22 AM, Collin Walling wrote:
>> Rework the SCLP boundary check to account for different SCLP commands
>> (eventually) allowing different boundary sizes.
>>
>> Move the length check code into a separate function, and introduce a
>> new
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 12:50:11 +0200
Janosch Frank wrote:
> On 6/19/20 12:22 AM, Collin Walling wrote:
> > Rework the SCLP boundary check to account for different SCLP commands
> > (eventually) allowing different boundary sizes.
> >
> > Move the length check code into a separate function, and
On 6/19/20 12:22 AM, Collin Walling wrote:
> Rework the SCLP boundary check to account for different SCLP commands
> (eventually) allowing different boundary sizes.
>
> Move the length check code into a separate function, and introduce a
> new function to determine the length of the read SCP data
Rework the SCLP boundary check to account for different SCLP commands
(eventually) allowing different boundary sizes.
Move the length check code into a separate function, and introduce a
new function to determine the length of the read SCP data (i.e. the size
from the start of the struct to where
