On 18.05.20 16:32, Collin Walling wrote:
> On 5/18/20 7:46 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 16.05.20 00:20, Collin Walling wrote:
>>> The SCCB must be checked for a sufficient length before it is filled
>>> with any data. If the length is insufficient, then the SCLP command
>>> is suppressed and the proper response code is set in the SCCB header.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 832be0d8a3bb ("s390x: sclp: Report insufficient SCCB length")
>>> Signed-off-by: Collin Walling <wall...@linux.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>> hw/s390x/sclp.c | 22 ++++++++++------------
>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/sclp.c b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
>>> index 61e2e2839c..2bd618515e 100644
>>> --- a/hw/s390x/sclp.c
>>> +++ b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
>>> @@ -75,6 +75,11 @@ static void read_SCP_info(SCLPDevice *sclp, SCCB *sccb)
>>> int rnsize, rnmax;
>>> IplParameterBlock *ipib = s390_ipl_get_iplb();
>>>
>>> + if (be16_to_cpu(sccb->h.length) < (sizeof(ReadInfo) + cpu_count *
>>> sizeof(CPUEntry))) {
>>> + sccb->h.response_code =
>>> cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_INSUFFICIENT_SCCB_LENGTH);
>>> + return;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>
>> (replied to v1 by mistake)
>>
>> Lines too long.
>>
>> Please run scripts/checkpatch.pl before submitting.
>>
>
> I do. The changes in this patch are replaced by the #3. I opted to be
> sloppy here for ease of readability.
>
> But if it's truly an issue I can clean it up for next round.
No good reason to be sloppy and make checkpatch (+ David) complain ;)
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
