Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes:
> On 27/11/2015 18:08, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> > evt_encrypt_change 4 5
>> Used in bt_hci_event_encrypt_change(). I figure it makes bt_hci_event()
>> overrun the destination by one byte.
>
> Yes, and Coverity complains.
>
>> Kernel has
>>
>> struct hci_ev_encrypt_change {
>> __u8 status;
>> __le16 handle;
>> __u8 encrypt;
>> } __packed;
>>
>> You changed this one. Plausible, but I don't want to have my R-by on it
>> all the same.
>
> Shall I proceed with this patch, just without R-by? Or only modify the
> one where Coverity complains? I picked this one because it matches a
> bluez patch.
Yes, that seems to make the most sense. If you feel like it, add a
sentence or two on the ones you don't fix to the commit message.
