On Fri 2020-09-18 14:32:41, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 18/09/2020 14.13, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Fri 2020-09-18 08:16:37, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> >> On 17/09/2020 15.16, John Ogness wrote:
> >>
> >>> if (dev->class)
> >>> subsys = dev->class->name;
> >>> else if (dev->bus)
> >>> subsys = dev->bus->name;
> >>> else
> >>> - return 0;
> >>> + return;
> >>>
> >>> - pos += snprintf(hdr + pos, hdrlen - pos, "SUBSYSTEM=%s", subsys);
> >>> - if (pos >= hdrlen)
> >>> - goto overflow;
> >>> + snprintf(dev_info->subsystem, sizeof(dev_info->subsystem), subsys);
> >>
> >> It's unlikely that subsys would contain a %, but this will be yet
> >> another place to spend brain cycles ignoring if doing static analysis.
> >> So can we not do this. Either of strXcpy() for X=s,l will do the same
> >> thing, and likely faster.
> >
> > Good point! Better be on the safe size in a generic printk() API.
> >
> > Well, I am afraid that this would be only small drop in a huge lake.
> > class->name and bus->name seems to be passed to %s in so many
> > *print*() calls all over the kernel code.
>
> So what? printf("%s", some_string_that_might_contain_percent_chars) is
> not a problem.
Grr, shame on me. I have completely messed this. The combination of
Friday afternoon and noisy kids did not help me much to get it right.
> printf(some_string_that_might_contain_percent_chars) is.
I fully agree that passing unknown string as "fmt" is dangerous and
must be used carefully. It is not needed here.
> And yes, one could do
>
> snprintf(dev_info->subsystem, sizeof(dev_info->subsystem), "%s", subsys);
>
> but one might as well avoid the snprintf overhead and use one of the
> strX functions that have the exact same semantics (copy as much as
> there's room for, ensure nul-termination).
Yes, we should use either snprinf() with %s or strXcpy().
Best Regards,
Petr
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
