On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 01:01:33 +0000 Atsushi Kumagai <kumagai-atsushi at mxc.nes.nec.co.jp> wrote: > Hello Petr, Hello Kumagai-san, > >To quote the sprintf(3) man page: > > > > Some programs imprudently rely on code such as the following > > > > sprintf(buf, "%s some further text", buf); > > > > to append text to buf. However, the standards explicitly note that > > the results are undefined if source and destination buffers overlap > > when calling sprintf(), snprintf(), vsprintf(), and vsnprintf(). > > Depending on the version of gcc(1) used, and the compiler options > > employed, calls such as the above will not produce the expected results. > > > >The original code is actually miscompiled on openSUSE 13.1. > > > >It's also overkill to call sprintf() for something that can be done > >with a simple assignment. > > > >Signed-off-by: Petr Tesarik <ptesarik at suse.cz> > > Thanks, it seems good to me. > > Actually, Nick sent the same patch in last July and we tried to > take care of buffer overflow at the same time as below: > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2013-August/009430.html > > However, this thread has been left open, so I was wondering if you > could take over this work. Of course you can decline this, then I'll > do it later as another patch. I don't mind taking over this work, but I don't think it's a good thing to combine the buffer overflow fix with the sprintf buffer overlap fix. What is the expected plan? Are you waiting for me to send a two-patch series now? Petr Tesarik
