On Thu, 22 Aug 2024, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 11:22:40AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Jul 2024, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 16/07/24 15:24, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > With the new __counted_by annotation, the "num_leds" variable needs to
> > > >
On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 14:24:59 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> With the new __counted_by annotation, the "num_leds" variable needs to
> valid for accesses to the "leds" array. This requirement is not met in
> gpio_leds_create(), since "num_leds" starts at "0", so "leds" index "0"
> will not be considered v
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 11:22:40AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2024, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 16/07/24 15:24, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > With the new __counted_by annotation, the "num_leds" variable needs to
> > > valid for accesses to the "leds" array. This requireme
On Tue, 16 Jul 2024, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
>
> On 16/07/24 15:24, Kees Cook wrote:
> > With the new __counted_by annotation, the "num_leds" variable needs to
> > valid for accesses to the "leds" array. This requirement is not met in
> > gpio_leds_create(), since "num_leds" starts at "0",
On 16/07/24 15:24, Kees Cook wrote:
With the new __counted_by annotation, the "num_leds" variable needs to
valid for accesses to the "leds" array. This requirement is not met in
gpio_leds_create(), since "num_leds" starts at "0", so "leds" index "0"
will not be considered valid (num_leds would
With the new __counted_by annotation, the "num_leds" variable needs to
valid for accesses to the "leds" array. This requirement is not met in
gpio_leds_create(), since "num_leds" starts at "0", so "leds" index "0"
will not be considered valid (num_leds would need to be "1" to access
index "0").
Fi
