On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 10:29:59 +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Jean,
>
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 09:57:52AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > > --- a/tools/i2cbusses.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/i2cbusses.c
> > > > @@ -220,18 +220,18 @@ struct i2c_adap *gather_i2c_busses(void)
> > > >
> > > > /* this should work for kernels 2.6.5 or higher and */
> > > > /* is preferred because is unambiguous */
> > > > - sprintf(n, "%s/%s/name", sysfs, de->d_name);
> > > > + snprintf(n, NAME_MAX, "%s/%s/name", sysfs, de->d_name);
> > >
> > > OK, now instead of running in a buffer overflow in sprintf you might
> > > call fopen with a partial (maybe unterminated?) filename. While this is
> > > definitively better, you should check the return value of snprintf to be
> > > completely safe here.
> >
> > To be honest, I never thought the buffer overflows could ever happen,
> > my motivation to fix them was to allow the code to build in OBS, where
> > FORTIFY_SOURCE is enabled. So I went for the most simple change that
> > made gcc happy.
> >
> > That being said, I have no problem additionally checking the value
> > returned by snprintf. Something like this?
> >
> > From: Jean Delvare
> > Subject: i2cbusses: Check the return value of snprintf
> >
> > It's very unlikely that these paths will ever be truncated, but
> > better safe than sorry.
> > ---
> > tools/i2cbusses.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > --- i2c-tools.orig/tools/i2cbusses.c 2017-11-02 16:17:50.698383029 +0100
> > +++ i2c-tools/tools/i2cbusses.c 2017-11-08 09:49:40.365339644 +0100
> > @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ struct i2c_adap *gather_i2c_busses(void)
> > FILE *f;
> > char fstype[NAME_MAX], sysfs[NAME_MAX], n[NAME_MAX];
> > int foundsysfs = 0;
> > - int count=0;
> > + int len, count = 0;
> > struct i2c_adap *adapters;
> >
> > adapters = calloc(BUNCH, sizeof(struct i2c_adap));
> > @@ -220,18 +220,32 @@ struct i2c_adap *gather_i2c_busses(void)
> >
> > /* this should work for kernels 2.6.5 or higher and */
> > /* is preferred because is unambiguous */
> > - snprintf(n, NAME_MAX, "%s/%s/name", sysfs, de->d_name);
> > + len = snprintf(n, NAME_MAX, "%s/%s/name", sysfs, de->d_name);
> > + if (len >= NAME_MAX) {
> > + fprintf(stderr, "%s: path truncated\n", n);
> > + continue;
> > + }
>
> According to C99 snprintf et al return "the number of characters which
> would have been written to the final string if enough space had been
> available". Up to glibc 2.0.6 -1 was returned though if the output was
> truncated. Does one still have to show consideration for a libc that
> old? Hmm, probably not.
I think we don't care, especially when nothing terribly bad would
happen then - simply back to the old behavior.
> Then your change looks fine.
Thanks for the review, I'll commit it.
--
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support
