On 5/18/20 11:43 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 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 ;)
>
>
Fair enough. I'll make the fix!
--
Regards,
Collin
Stay safe and stay healthy
