Re: [PATCH] Make v9fs uname and remotename parsing more robust

2008-02-24 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:37:23 -0600 "Eric Van Hensbergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 2:07 AM, Andrew Morton > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > It would be better to present this as two patches. One adds the new core > > APIs and the other uses those APIs in v9fs. Th

Re: [PATCH] Make v9fs uname and remotename parsing more robust

2008-02-24 Thread Eric Van Hensbergen
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 2:07 AM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It would be better to present this as two patches. One adds the new core > APIs and the other uses those APIs in v9fs. The patches would take > separate routes into mainline. > > I guess I can sneak this one in as-i

Re: [PATCH] Make v9fs uname and remotename parsing more robust

2008-02-23 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:54:34 +0100 Markus Armbruster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > match_strcpy() is a somewhat creepy function: the caller needs to make > sure that the destination buffer is big enough, and when he screws up > or forgets, match_strcpy() happily overruns the buffer. > > There's ex

[PATCH] Make v9fs uname and remotename parsing more robust

2008-02-15 Thread Markus Armbruster
match_strcpy() is a somewhat creepy function: the caller needs to make sure that the destination buffer is big enough, and when he screws up or forgets, match_strcpy() happily overruns the buffer. There's exactly one customer: v9fs_parse_options(). I believe it currently can't overflow its buffer