于 2012年12月19日 12:09, Greg KH 写道:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:23:29AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>> Hello Paul Fulghum:
>>
>> it seems you are very busy,
>> and can not get your reply for "checking length in function rx_get_buf".
>
> You should always send patches, long emails like this about
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:23:29AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> Hello Paul Fulghum:
>
> it seems you are very busy,
> and can not get your reply for "checking length in function rx_get_buf".
You should always send patches, long emails like this about "potential"
issues are hard to handle, patches
Hello Paul Fulghum:
it seems you are very busy,
and can not get your reply for "checking length in function rx_get_buf".
so I suggest:
design:
to give it additional length checking in function rx_get_buf.
if realy > max_frame_size, will return false (also need call free_rbufs).
Hello Paul Fulghum:
it seems you are very busy,
and can not get your reply for checking length in function rx_get_buf.
so I suggest:
design:
to give it additional length checking in function rx_get_buf.
if realy max_frame_size, will return false (also need call free_rbufs).
unit
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:23:29AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
Hello Paul Fulghum:
it seems you are very busy,
and can not get your reply for checking length in function rx_get_buf.
You should always send patches, long emails like this about potential
issues are hard to handle, patches are
于 2012年12月19日 12:09, Greg KH 写道:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:23:29AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
Hello Paul Fulghum:
it seems you are very busy,
and can not get your reply for checking length in function rx_get_buf.
You should always send patches, long emails like this about potential
issues
Hello Paul Fulghum:
Firstly, sorry for my mistake:
I am a reporter (not reviewer), and not suitable to review maintainer's
patch.
when you send relative patch, need not cc to me (I am not reviewer)
so:
could you send patch again (not need cc to me) ?
(and also it is better
Hello Paul Fulghum:
Firstly, sorry for my mistake:
I am a reporter (not reviewer), and not suitable to review maintainer's
patch.
when you send relative patch, need not cc to me (I am not reviewer)
so:
could you send patch again (not need cc to me) ?
(and also it is better
Hello Greg Kroah-Hartman:
于 2012年12月04日 01:13, Paul Fulghum 写道:
> Fix call to line discipline receive_buf by synclink drivers.
> Dummy flag buffer argument is ignored by N_HDLC line discipline but might
> be of insufficient size if accessed by a different line discipline
> selected by mistake.
Hello Greg Kroah-Hartman:
于 2012年12月04日 01:13, Paul Fulghum 写道:
Fix call to line discipline receive_buf by synclink drivers.
Dummy flag buffer argument is ignored by N_HDLC line discipline but might
be of insufficient size if accessed by a different line discipline
selected by mistake. flag
于 2012年12月04日 00:03, Paul Fulghum 写道:
> On 12/2/2012 8:20 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
>> pardon (I am just learning)
>> does 65535 mean HDLC_MAX_FRAME_SIZE ?
>> why do we need info->max_frame_size >= 4096 ?
>> in drivers/tty/synclink_gt.c:
>> 3550 if (info->max_frame_size < 4096)
>> 3551
于 2012年12月04日 01:13, Paul Fulghum 写道:
> Fix call to line discipline receive_buf by synclink drivers.
> Dummy flag buffer argument is ignored by N_HDLC line discipline but might
> be of insufficient size if accessed by a different line discipline
> selected by mistake. flag buffer allocation now
于 2012年12月04日 01:13, Paul Fulghum 写道:
Fix call to line discipline receive_buf by synclink drivers.
Dummy flag buffer argument is ignored by N_HDLC line discipline but might
be of insufficient size if accessed by a different line discipline
selected by mistake. flag buffer allocation now
于 2012年12月04日 00:03, Paul Fulghum 写道:
On 12/2/2012 8:20 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
pardon (I am just learning)
does 65535 mean HDLC_MAX_FRAME_SIZE ?
why do we need info-max_frame_size = 4096 ?
in drivers/tty/synclink_gt.c:
3550 if (info-max_frame_size 4096)
3551
Fix call to line discipline receive_buf by synclink drivers.
Dummy flag buffer argument is ignored by N_HDLC line discipline but might
be of insufficient size if accessed by a different line discipline
selected by mistake. flag buffer allocation now matches max size of data
buffer. Unused char_buf
On 12/2/2012 8:20 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
> pardon (I am just learning)
> does 65535 mean HDLC_MAX_FRAME_SIZE ?
> why do we need info->max_frame_size >= 4096 ?
> in drivers/tty/synclink_gt.c:
> 3550 if (info->max_frame_size < 4096)
> 3551 info->max_frame_size = 4096;
>
On 12/2/2012 8:20 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
pardon (I am just learning)
does 65535 mean HDLC_MAX_FRAME_SIZE ?
why do we need info-max_frame_size = 4096 ?
in drivers/tty/synclink_gt.c:
3550 if (info-max_frame_size 4096)
3551 info-max_frame_size = 4096;
3552
Fix call to line discipline receive_buf by synclink drivers.
Dummy flag buffer argument is ignored by N_HDLC line discipline but might
be of insufficient size if accessed by a different line discipline
selected by mistake. flag buffer allocation now matches max size of data
buffer. Unused char_buf
于 2012年12月03日 04:05, Paul Fulghum 写道:
> OK, I’ll do that.
>
pardon (I am just learning)
does 65535 mean HDLC_MAX_FRAME_SIZE ?
why do we need info->max_frame_size >= 4096 ?
in drivers/tty/synclink_gt.c:
3550 if (info->max_frame_size < 4096)
3551 info->max_frame_size =
On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 10:11:58 -0600
Paul Fulghum wrote:
> True, in this mode line disciplines other than N_HDLC would not be functional
> and N_HDLC ignores the flag buffer.
> This change won’t make other line disciplines useful, it will just prevent
> the case of a mistakenly selected line
> + * If a different line discipline is selected
> by mistake it
> + * will have valid memory for both arguments.
> + */
> + ldisc_receive_buf(tty, buf->data, buf->data,
>
+ * If a different line discipline is selected
by mistake it
+ * will have valid memory for both arguments.
+ */
+ ldisc_receive_buf(tty, buf-data, buf-data,
framesize);
But
On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 10:11:58 -0600
Paul Fulghum pau...@microgate.com wrote:
True, in this mode line disciplines other than N_HDLC would not be functional
and N_HDLC ignores the flag buffer.
This change won’t make other line disciplines useful, it will just prevent
the case of a mistakenly
于 2012年12月03日 04:05, Paul Fulghum 写道:
OK, I’ll do that.
pardon (I am just learning)
does 65535 mean HDLC_MAX_FRAME_SIZE ?
why do we need info-max_frame_size = 4096 ?
in drivers/tty/synclink_gt.c:
3550 if (info-max_frame_size 4096)
3551 info-max_frame_size = 4096;
Fix call to line discipline receive_buf by synclink drivers.
Dummy flag buffer argument is ignored by N_HDLC line discipline but might
be of insufficient size if accessed by a different line discipline
selected by mistake. Calls are changed to use data buffer argument for
both data and flag buffer
Fix call to line discipline receive_buf by synclink drivers.
Dummy flag buffer argument is ignored by N_HDLC line discipline but might
be of insufficient size if accessed by a different line discipline
selected by mistake. Calls are changed to use data buffer argument for
both data and flag buffer
26 matches
Mail list logo
