On 7/24/19 10:46 PM, Wang Xiayang wrote:
As commit a86028f8e3ee ("staging: most: sound: replace snprintf
with strscpy") suggested, using snprintf without a format specifier
is potentially risky if a0->vendor_name or a0->vendor_pn mistakenly
contain format specifiers. In addition, as compared in the
implementation, strscpy looks more light-weight than snprintf.
This patch does not incur any functional change.
Signed-off-by: Wang Xiayang <xywang.sjtu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c b/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
index 4059655639d9..068b54218ff4 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
@@ -3461,12 +3461,12 @@ static void qla2xxx_print_sfp_info(struct scsi_qla_host *vha)
int leftover, len;
memset(str, 0, STR_LEN);
- snprintf(str, SFF_VEN_NAME_LEN+1, a0->vendor_name);
+ strscpy(str, a0->vendor_name, SFF_VEN_NAME_LEN+1);
ql_dbg(ql_dbg_init, vha, 0x015a,
"SFP MFG Name: %s\n", str);
memset(str, 0, STR_LEN);
- snprintf(str, SFF_PART_NAME_LEN+1, a0->vendor_pn);
+ strscpy(str, a0->vendor_pn, SFF_PART_NAME_LEN+1);
ql_dbg(ql_dbg_init, vha, 0x015c,
"SFP Part Name: %s\n", str);
From qla_def.h:
/* Refer to SNIA SFF 8247 */
struct sff_8247_a0 {
[ ... ]
u8 vendor_name[SFF_VEN_NAME_LEN]; /* offset 20/14h */
u8 vendor_pn[SFF_PART_NAME_LEN]; /* part number */
So I think that using SFF_PART_NAME_LEN+1 as length limit is wrong.
Himanshu, do you perhaps know whether or not the vendor_name and
vendor_pn arrays should be '\0'-terminated in struct sff_8247_a0?
Thanks,
Bart.
