On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 11:44 PM, SF Markus Elfring
<elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 22:34:12 +0100
>
> Two strings should be quickly put into a sequence by two function calls.
> Thus use the function "seq_puts" instead of "seq_printf".
>
> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
>
> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> net/atm/clip.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/atm/clip.c b/net/atm/clip.c
> index d4f6029d5109..62a852165b19 100644
> --- a/net/atm/clip.c
> +++ b/net/atm/clip.c
> @@ -708,11 +708,11 @@ static void svc_addr(struct seq_file *seq, struct sockaddr_atmsvc *addr)
> static int e164[] = { 1, 8, 4, 6, 1, 0 };
>
> if (*addr->sas_addr.pub) {
> - seq_printf(seq, "%s", addr->sas_addr.pub);
> + seq_puts(seq, addr->sas_addr.pub);
Which opens a lot of security concerns.
Never do this again.
> if (*addr->sas_addr.prv)
> seq_putc(seq, '+');
> } else if (!*addr->sas_addr.prv) {
> - seq_printf(seq, "%s", "(none)");
> + seq_puts(seq, "(none)");
...while this one is okay per se, better to keep above pattern (same
style over the piece of code / function).
> return;
> }
> if (*addr->sas_addr.prv) {
> --
> 2.15.1
>
P.S. I'm wondering what would be first, Markus starts looking into the
actual code, or most (all) of the maintainers just ban him.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
