On Wed, 2018-11-28 at 17:44 +0100, David Disseldorp wrote:
> Hi Bart,
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 08:36:19 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>
> > Maybe I'm missing something, but why is zeroing of unused bytes in these
> > functions
> > necessary? Would the following be correct if all strings in struct
Hi Bart,
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 08:36:19 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something, but why is zeroing of unused bytes in these
> functions
> necessary? Would the following be correct if all strings in struct t10_wwn
> would be
> '\0'-terminated?
Your patch looks good to me. Min
On Wed, 2018-11-28 at 17:28 +0100, David Disseldorp wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 08:08:30 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>
> > > Just a follow up here. I think it's safer to retain strncpy() in this
> > > function for the purpose of zero filling. scsi_dump_inquiry() and
> > > target_stat_lu_vend_sh
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 08:08:30 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > Just a follow up here. I think it's safer to retain strncpy() in this
> > function for the purpose of zero filling. scsi_dump_inquiry() and
> > target_stat_lu_vend_show() walk the entire length of the t10_wwn.vendor
> > buffer.
>
>
On Wed, 2018-11-28 at 16:37 +0100, David Disseldorp wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 19:00:57 +0100, David Disseldorp wrote:
>
> > > > + strncpy(buf, page, sizeof(buf));
> > >
> > > Isn't strncpy() deprecated? How about using strlcpy() instead?
> >
> > Will change to use strlcpy in the n
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 19:00:57 +0100, David Disseldorp wrote:
> > > + strncpy(buf, page, sizeof(buf));
> >
> > Isn't strncpy() deprecated? How about using strlcpy() instead?
>
> Will change to use strlcpy in the next round.
Just a follow up here. I think it's safer to retain strncpy() in th
On Tue, 2018-11-20 at 19:00 +0100, David Disseldorp wrote:
> I tend to agree that it's dangerous, but chose to stay somewhat
> consistent with the other t10_wwn strings that are treated as though
> they may not be NULL terminated.
>
> If you're in favour adding an extra terminator byte here, then
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 09:24:39 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-11-19 at 22:06 +0100, David Disseldorp wrote:
> > /*
> > + * STANDARD and VPD page 0x80 T10 Vendor Identification
> > + */
> > +static ssize_t target_wwn_vendor_id_show(struct config_item *item,
> > + char *page)
On Mon, 2018-11-19 at 22:06 +0100, David Disseldorp wrote:
> /*
> + * STANDARD and VPD page 0x80 T10 Vendor Identification
> + */
> +static ssize_t target_wwn_vendor_id_show(struct config_item *item,
> + char *page)
> +{
> + return sprintf(page, "T10 Vendor Identification: %."
> +
9 matches
Mail list logo
