Zdenek, Okay then. I'll provide the updated patch later today.
Regards, Dmitry 31.03.2014 13:34, Zdenek Styblik пишет: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Dmitry Bazhenov <dim...@pigeonpoint.com> > wrote: >> Hello, Zdenek, >> >> I think there should be no such checks inside these callbacks. >> However, I guess there should be a check inside thr >> ipmi_intf_set_max_request/response_data_size >> functions which guarantee that the minimum value will be not less than 25 >> bytes (required by IPMI spec). >> >> Could you please add such check or is it better for me to provide a new >> patch revision? >> >> Regards, >> Dmitry >> > Dmitry, > > I don't have access to any IPMI capable hardware, so I'm afraid it's > either up to you or somebody else. I'm sorry. > > Best regards, > Z. > >> 31.03.2014 13:07, Zdenek Styblik пишет: >> >>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Zdenek Styblik >>> <zdenek.styb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Dmitry Bazhenov <dim...@pigeonpoint.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>>> I got a bit "scared" by solution applied to >>>>>> ipmi_intf_get_max_request_data_size() and >>>>>> ipmi_intf_get_max_response_data_size(). But then I've tried to compile >>>>>> just this one function with all kinds of switches and compiler didn't >>>>>> comply, so I guess it's ok. >>>>>> I wonder, shouldn't be the same logic applied to >>>>>> ipmi_lanp_set_max_rq_data_size() and ipmi_lanp_set_max_rp_data_size() >>>>>> as well? >>>>> [DB] Calculations in the ipmi_intf_get_max_request_data_size() are >>>>> required >>>>> for the case if the target IPMC device is accessed via IPMI bridging. >>>>> Since >>>>> we can not deduce the target channel maximum message size, we use the >>>>> minimum required size. These calculations are not needed for direct IPMC >>>>> device access. >>>>> [DB] Set max size functions are required if maximum message size over >>>>> the >>>>> chosen interface must be somehow modified from the value received from >>>>> the >>>>> interface properties. This is the case for the encrypted RMCP+ payload >>>>> where >>>>> maximum message size must be reduced by the confidentiality >>>>> header/trailer >>>>> sizes. Other interface types do not even implement these callbacks. >>>>> >>>> What I meant is whether under/over-flow shouldn't be checked in those >>>> functions as well. >>>> >>> Ping? >>> >>> Z. >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Ipmitool-devel mailing list Ipmitool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ipmitool-devel
