On 2/8/22 2:21 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> sprintf() (still used in the USB core for the sysfs output) is vulnerable >> to the buffer overflow. > > Really? Where? If we have potential overflows, let's fix them as bug > fixes and properly backport the fixes where needed. I must admit I didn't found any real overflows in my quick triage... > If these really are just using the "old-style" functions instead, then > that's something totally different and you should not say "vulnerable" > if it really is not at all. Isn't sprint() generally considered harmful? :-) >> Use the new-fangled sysfs_emit() instead. >> >> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with the SVACE static >> analysis tool. > > You mean coccinelle, right? Do you think coccinelle is the only code analyzer in this world? :-) I told you I was using SVACE (made by Russian Institute of the System Programming). > It's been checking for this for a while. > > Also properly wrap your changelog at 72 columns please. Well, checkpatch.pl was content. :-) > thanks, > > greg k-h MBR, Sergey
