Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> writes:
> On 06/06/13 18:27, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Classic endianness bug due to careless dirty coding: assuming reading
>> a byte from an int variable gets the least significant byte.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> hw/i386/smbios.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/i386/smbios.c b/hw/i386/smbios.c
>> index 322f0a0..68bd6d0 100644
>> --- a/hw/i386/smbios.c
>> +++ b/hw/i386/smbios.c
>> @@ -127,6 +127,7 @@ void smbios_add_field(int type, int offset, const void
>> *data, size_t len)
>> static void smbios_build_type_0_fields(const char *t)
>> {
>> char buf[1024];
>> + unsigned char major, minor;
>>
>> if (get_param_value(buf, sizeof(buf), "vendor", t))
>> smbios_add_field(0, offsetof(struct smbios_type_0, vendor_str),
>> @@ -139,8 +140,7 @@ static void smbios_build_type_0_fields(const char *t)
>> bios_release_date_str),
>> buf, strlen(buf) + 1);
>> if (get_param_value(buf, sizeof(buf), "release", t)) {
>> - int major, minor;
>> - sscanf(buf, "%d.%d", &major, &minor);
>> + sscanf(buf, "%hhd.%hhd", &major, &minor);
>> smbios_add_field(0, offsetof(struct smbios_type_0,
>> system_bios_major_release),
>> &major, 1);
>>
>
> Strictly speaking these should be %hhu, if it's not much of a bother.
It's not.
> Otherwise:
>
> Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>
>
> (BTW what was wrong with the definitions being in the narrowest scope? :))
I don't like spreading declarations all over the function in C. Not
entirely sure why. Perhaps it's just habit. Perhaps it's because
declarations don't stand out visually, unlike in some other languages.
