On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Zdenek Styblik
wrote:
[...]
>> If you want to go though all this hassle of getting rid of every scanf
>> from the code, then that's up to you, but I don't think that there is
>> any reason to intermingle this fairly massive project with my fairly
>> simple patch to
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Dan Gora wrote:
> My patch made no attempt to perform a security audit of the code. It
> was only to get rid of the warnings that were caused by removing the
> compilation flag. The same scanf's which were there before are still
> there, just the return code is n
Hi Zdenek,
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Zdenek Styblik
wrote:
>>> There are still those(two) scanf() patches left. I want to look at
>>> these closer, because it seems tricky to handle scanf() correctly.
>>
>> It's really not _that_ tricky. It returns the number of things that
>> it scanned
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Dan Gora wrote:
[...]
>
> What I mean is that the changes that you added to my changes do not
> change the generated code. They just add more words to the source
> code.
>
> Changing:
>
> fseek(fd, blah, blah);
> to
> tmp = fseek(fd, blah, blah);
>
> then neve
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Zdenek Styblik
wrote:
> Dan,
>
> I agree that some changes aren't as best as they could be, eg.
> checking some return values, and I admit there is still some work
> left. I hope code got simpler and compiler shut. Anyone is free to
> iterate on these changes and m
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Dan Gora wrote:
> 0001-Re-work-of-ipmi_ek_display_fru_header_detail.patch
>
> This looks ok... It's not necessary to change
> ipmi_ek_display_fru_header_detail to return int, especially since you
> don't check the return code at all. Also the added storing of the
0001-Re-work-of-ipmi_ek_display_fru_header_detail.patch
This looks ok... It's not necessary to change
ipmi_ek_display_fru_header_detail to return int, especially since you
don't check the return code at all. Also the added storing of the
return code for fseek at the bottom, but not checking the v
Hello all,
attached are re-works of three functions in 'lib/ipmi_ekanalyzer.c'.
These are based on patches Dan has uploaded/attached to ticket in
question.
Please, somebody do the review, wave the flag, so we can get a move on.
Thanks,
Z.
0001-Re-work-of-ipmi_ek_display_fru_header_detail.patch
Ok, let's fork this discussion.
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Dan Gora wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Zdenek Styblik
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Dan Gora wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Zdenek Styblik
>>> wrote:
>>>
> I posted 6 patches back on Ap
