On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 12:12:23PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 16:48:15 +0200 Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 04:04:53PM +0300, Peter Kosyh wrote: > > > Use snprintf() to avoid the potential buffer overflow. Although in the > > > current code this is hardly possible, the safety is unclean. > > > > Let's fix the tools instead. The kernel code is correct. > > I'm guessing the code is correct because port can't be a high value? Yes, port value is provided as input to mlx4_init_port_info() and it is capped by MLX4_MAX_PORTS, which is 2. > Otherwise, if I'm counting right, large enough port representation > (e.g. 99999999) could overflow the string. If that's the case - how > would they "fix the tool" to know the port is always a single digit? I may admit that I don't know how hard or easy to implement it, but it will be great if tool would be able to understand that dev->caps.num_ports are not really dynamic values, but constant ones. However, I don't mind if we merge it. Thanks, Reviewed-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxx>
