qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 07/17] block/vvfat.c: fix warnings with _FORTIFY


From: Gleb Natapov
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 07/17] block/vvfat.c: fix warnings with _FORTIFY_SOURCE
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:18:47 +0200

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 09:17:27AM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
> Gleb Natapov <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:14:03PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
> >> From: Kirill A. Shutemov <address@hidden>
> >> 
> >> CC    block/vvfat.o
> >> cc1: warnings being treated as errors
> >> block/vvfat.c: In function 'commit_one_file':
> >> block/vvfat.c:2259: error: ignoring return value of 'ftruncate', declared 
> >> with attribute warn_unused_result
> >> make: *** [block/vvfat.o] Error 1
> >>   CC    block/vvfat.o
> >> In file included from /usr/include/stdio.h:912,
> >>                  from ./qemu-common.h:19,
> >>                  from block/vvfat.c:27:
> >> In function 'snprintf',
> >>     inlined from 'init_directories' at block/vvfat.c:871,
> >>     inlined from 'vvfat_open' at block/vvfat.c:1068:
> >> /usr/include/bits/stdio2.h:65: error: call to __builtin___snprintf_chk 
> >> will always overflow destination buffer
> >> make: *** [block/vvfat.o] Error 1
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <address@hidden>
> >> Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela <address@hidden>
> >> ---
> >>  block/vvfat.c |    9 +++++++--
> >>  1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/block/vvfat.c b/block/vvfat.c
> >> index 063f731..df957e5 100644
> >> --- a/block/vvfat.c
> >> +++ b/block/vvfat.c
> >> @@ -868,7 +868,8 @@ static int init_directories(BDRVVVFATState* s,
> >>      {
> >>    direntry_t* entry=array_get_next(&(s->directory));
> >>    entry->attributes=0x28; /* archive | volume label */
> >> -  snprintf((char*)entry->name,11,"QEMU VVFAT");
> >> +  memcpy(entry->name,"QEMU VVF",8);
> >> +  memcpy(entry->extension,"AT ",3);
> >>      }
> >> 
> > Before the change extension was initialized to "AT\0" after it is "AT "
> 
> it was paolo who told to do that change.  entries are not 0 ended.
> 
> that was his explanation.
> 
OK. Just wanted to make sure this is intentional.

--
                        Gleb.




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]