-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 349
[user-space] part 0: preliminary trivial clean up patches #10291
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The memcpy_s call uses inconsistent sizing - first parameter uses sizeof(dev->tctx) but the last parameter uses sizeof(struct tr_ctx). For clarity and safety, both should use sizeof(dev->tctx) or both should use sizeof(struct tr_ctx) to ensure they match.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
can someone get us a smarter copilot? :-/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
come on, be nice, it's probably a highschool intern!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
to be fair, the original code used two
sizeof(struct tr_ctx):eb96c62 ("trace: comp: Add trace context for each component instance")
Since both src and dst is the same struct with the same size why not use just
memcpy(&dev->tctx, trace_comp_drv_get_tr_ctx(dev->drv), sizeof(dev->tctx));? (or s/sizeof(dev->tctx)/sizeof(struct tr_ctx))Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@ujfalusi correct, it did use the same sizes before and I've corrected that. I'm used to using
memcpy()myself and would be happy to continue using it. But certain powers in the Universe think, thatmemcpy_s()is more secure... So, yes, I'd just usememcpy(&dev->tctx, trace_comp_drv_get_tr_ctx(dev->drv), sizeof(dev->tctx))but if we have to usememcpy_s()then let's use it correctly - which in accordance with its SOF implementation means, that the first size is the size of the destination buffer and the second size is the size that has to be copied.