On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 11:34:43 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Giel van Schijndel <me@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Especially since one very strange piece of code seems to be written in >> such a way that a NUL needs to be placed where a NUL is present already. > > Actually, it's worse than that. This: > >> len = snprintf(fname, 99, "%s", buf); >> - fname[len-1] = '\0'; > > is complete garbage, since the return value of snprintf() is not the > length of the result, but length of what the result *would* have been. > > So if the string doesn't fit in 99 bytes, it will actively corrupt > some random memory after the string. It's not writing zero to what was > already zero, it's corrupting memory. Ah yes, I didn't even notice that nasty side effect. I just deleted that "really, really" NUL-termination line because it was based on a misunderstanding of snprintf()'s postcondition. Even if len==sizeof(fname) this still would have given the wrong example for others to follow. > Anyway, from a quick glance your patches look fine, but you need to > sign off on them. See Documentation/SubmittingPatches. Ah yes, forgot that. Would it be sufficient if I sent a reply to all those patch mails with next line tacked on, or would it require a resubmission? > Signed-off-by: Giel van Schijndel <me@xxxxxxxxx> -- Met vriendelijke groet, With kind regards, Giel van Schijndel -- "Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code will be a violent psychopath who knows where you live." -- Rick Osborne
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
