Re: bin/38723

["Arnaud Lacombe" <lacombar%gmail.com@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR bin/38723; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Arnaud Lacombe" <lacombar%gmail.com@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Cc: gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost, netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost, 
paul%whooppee.com@localhost
Subject: Re: bin/38723
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 12:10:16 -0500

 Hi,
 
 On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:40 AM, FUKAUMI Naoki <fun%naobsd.org@localhost> 
wrote:
 > The following reply was made to PR bin/38723; it has been noted by GNATS.
 >
 > From: FUKAUMI Naoki <fun%naobsd.org@localhost>
 > To: gnats-bugs%gnats.NetBSD.org@localhost
 > Cc: christos%NetBSD.org@localhost
 > Subject: Re: bin/38723
 > Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:37:54 +0900
 >
 >  --Multipart_Wed_Dec_17_01:37:54_2008-1
 >  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
 >
 >  hi christos,
 >
 >  you didn't use 2nd patch from paul, so "AMD Power Management features"
 >  is still missing. please apply attached patch, and please pullup to
 >  netbsd-5.
 >
 I object. Dynamic allocation should not be needed, CPUID_APM_FLAGS is
 way much smaller than MAXPATHLEN and there is no reason to use
 MAXPATHLEN just because it is a huge value, the use of this constant
 is bogus in this context.
 
 >  [before]
 > [...]
 >  cpu0: AMD Power Management features:
 >  cpu0: family 0f model 02 extfamily 01 extmodel 00
 >
 >  [after]
 > [...]
 >  cpu0: AMD Power Management features: 1f9<TS,TTP,HTC,STC,100,HWP,TSC>
 >  cpu0: family 0f model 02 extfamily 01 extmodel 00
 >
 >  --
 >  FUKAUMI Naoki
 >
 >  --Multipart_Wed_Dec_17_01:37:54_2008-1
 >  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
 >
 >  Index: usr.sbin/cpuctl/arch/i386.c
 >  ===================================================================
 >  RCS file: /home/fun/cvsroot/NetBSD/src/usr.sbin/cpuctl/arch/i386.c,v
 >  retrieving revision 1.13
 >  diff -u -p -r1.13 i386.c
 >  --- usr.sbin/cpuctl/arch/i386.c        14 Oct 2008 15:49:04 -0000      1.13
 >  +++ usr.sbin/cpuctl/arch/i386.c        16 Dec 2008 16:20:51 -0000
 >  @@ -1778,7 +1778,7 @@ static void
 >  powernow_probe(struct cpu_info *ci)
 >  {
 >        uint32_t regs[4];
 >  -      char line[256];
 >  +      char *buf;
 >
 >        x86_cpuid(0x80000000, regs);
 >
 >  @@ -1787,7 +1787,10 @@ powernow_probe(struct cpu_info *ci)
 >                return;
 >        x86_cpuid(0x80000007, regs);
 >
 >  -      bitmask_snprintf(regs[3], CPUID_APM_FLAGS, line, sizeof(line));
 >  +      buf = malloc(MAXPATHLEN);
 >  +      bitmask_snprintf(regs[3], CPUID_APM_FLAGS, buf, MAXPATHLEN);
 sizeof(CPUID_APM_FLAGS) == 37, including control char. If you include
 prefix and suffix added by bitmask_snprintf(9) should should hardly
 needed a buffer bigger than 64.
 
  - Arnaud