On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:38:03PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 03:06 -0500, Tomas Hozza wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > This is just for sanity. The value PATH_MAX was chosen after > > > > discussion > > > > with K. Y. Srinivasan and Olaf Hering instead of some "magic" > > > > number like > > > > 256 or 512. > > > > > > PATH_MAX is a magic name. > > > > It is defined in "limits.h". I would welcome some more constructive > > argumentation and critics. > > It still bears no relation to any actual limit in the C library or Linux > kernel. So it's no more valid than the previous number. > > In the current context we're enumerating /sys/class/net and we know that > all the interface names in there are limited to IFNAMSIZ-1 = 15 (there > is also potentially "bonding_masters"). The longest path name we need > to use is definitely much shorter than even 256 bytes. > > > > > > Using snprintf() is a good idea, but you need to check the return > > > > > value and handle the truncation case somehow. > > > > > > > > By using PATH_MAX sized buffer there is no need for handling the > > > > truncation > > > > case. > > > > > > You are claiming two contradictory things: sprintf() may overrun the > > > buffer, so we need the length check provided by snprintf(), but there > > > is no need to check for truncation because we know the length is > > > sufficient. > > > > So what do you propose? How should it be solved? > > if (snprintf(dev_id, sizeof(dev_id), ...) >= sizeof(dev_id)) > continue; > > Possibly logging a warning. I agree, I'm dropping this patch from my to-apply queue. greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
