On 20.10.17 13:02, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>
> On 10/20/2017 12:41 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> [...]
>>>> @@ -76,17 +76,28 @@ static int _strlen(const char *str)
>>>> long write(int fd, const void *str, size_t len)
>>>> {
>>>> WriteEventData *sccb = (void *)_sccb;
>>>> + const char *p;
>>>> + size_t data_len = 0;
>>>>
>>>> if (fd != 1 && fd != 2) {
>>>> return -EIO;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> - sccb->h.length = sizeof(WriteEventData) + len;
>>>> + for (p = str; *p; ++p) {
>>>> + if (data_len > SCCB_DATA_LEN - 1) {
>>>> + return -EFBIG;
>>>> + }
>>>> + if (*p == '\n') {
>>>> + sccb->data[data_len++] = '\r';
>>>> + }
>>>> + sccb->data[data_len++] = *p;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + sccb->h.length = sizeof(WriteEventData) + data_len;
>>>
>>> This subtly changes the semantics of the write() function from an
>>> explicitly passed in "len" argument to NULL termination determined
>>> sizing, no?
>>>
>>> In that case, wouldn't it make sense to either remove the len argument
>>> altogether or keep respecting it?
>>
>> Yes, well spotted.
>> The write function is used in other code (SLOF related network boot),
>> so we should change it to respect the length, I think.
>
> Something like this on top?
>
I think that basically gets you back to the original semantics. I'm not
terribly thrilled about the readability of the function though, but
that's your call :)
Alex
> --- a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/sclp.c
> +++ b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/sclp.c
> @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ long write(int fd, const void *str, size_t len)
> return -EIO;
> }
>
> - for (p = str; *p; ++p) {
> + for (p = str; len ; ++p, len--) {
> if (data_len > SCCB_DATA_LEN - 1) {
> return -EFBIG;
> }
>
>
