Hi Nathan, > This does not appear to be a false positive but what was the intent > here? Should the local name variables increase their length or should > the buffer length be reduced?
You're right, the local name variables and snprintf argument don't match. Thanks for noticing. I think that we should increase the name variables to be SNET_NAME_SIZE bytes long. How should I proceed from here? Should I create a new version for this patch, or should I fix it in a follow up patch? Thanks, Alvaro _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
