On Mon, 19 Feb 2024, Kees Cook wrote: > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 03:23:12PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > Adding this to checkpatch is a good idea. > > Yeah, please do. You can look at the "strncpy -> strscpy" check that is > already in there for an example. > > > > > What if we also take Kees's suggestion and hit all of these found in > > SCSI in one patch to keep the churn down to a minimum? > > We don't have to focus on SCSI even. At the end of the next -rc1, I can When I've conducted similar work before, I've taken it subsystem by subsystem. However, if you're happy to co-ordinate with the big penguin et al. and get them all with a treewide patch, please go for it. > send a tree-wide patch (from Coccinelle) that'll convert all snprintf() > uses that don't check a return value into scnprintf(). For example, > this seems to do the trick: > > @scnprintf depends on !(file in "tools") && !(file in "samples")@ > @@ > > -snprintf > +scnprintf > (...); > > > Results in: > > 2252 files changed, 4795 insertions(+), 4795 deletions(-) Super! -- Lee Jones [李琼斯]
