On 27/11/2015 18:08, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> > evt_encrypt_change 4 5
> Used in bt_hci_event_encrypt_change(). I figure it makes bt_hci_event()
> overrun the destination by one byte.
Yes, and Coverity complains.
> Kernel has
>
> struct hci_ev_encrypt_change {
> __u8 status;
> __le16 handle;
> __u8 encrypt;
> } __packed;
>
> You changed this one. Plausible, but I don't want to have my R-by on it
> all the same.
Shall I proceed with this patch, just without R-by? Or only modify the
one where Coverity complains? I picked this one because it matches a
bluez patch.
Paolo
