On (23/01/17 12:20), Petr Mladek wrote: > > Oh, yes, I agree that snprintf() should be replaced. Maybe we can go > > even a bit furhter and replace all snprintf()-s in kernel/printk/* > > (well, in a similar fashion, just in case). I'm just trying to understand > > what type of assumptions does coverity make here and so far everything > > looks rather peculiar. > > Note that we sometimes need snprintf() to compute the needed size > of the buffer. For example, vsnprintf() in vprintk_store() is > correct. Oh, right, that's an excellebt point.
