On (Fri) 08 May 2015 [11:30:09], walter harms wrote: > > > Am 08.05.2015 11:16, schrieb Dan Carpenter: > > My static checker complains that this sprintf() can overflow but really > > it can't. Just silence the warning by using snprintf(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > v2: the overflow is not possible so just leave the buffer size alone and > > silence the warning with snprintf(). > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/virtio_console.c b/drivers/char/virtio_console.c > > index 50754d20..8283989 100644 > > --- a/drivers/char/virtio_console.c > > +++ b/drivers/char/virtio_console.c > > @@ -1492,8 +1492,8 @@ static int add_port(struct ports_device *portdev, u32 id) > > * Finally, create the debugfs file that we can use to > > * inspect a port's state at any time > > */ > > - sprintf(debugfs_name, "vport%up%u", > > - port->portdev->vdev->index, id); > > + snprintf(debugfs_name, sizeof(debugfs_name), "vport%up%u", > > + port->portdev->vdev->index, id); > > > would it help to use %03u (or so) to make it more obvious ? > > Note: i prefer a leading 0 in my programms to make it more easy > to work with grep and friends. you may thing otherwise. Well we've been exposing names like /dev/vport0p0, /dev/vport2p15, etc., and there might be scripts relying on such names, so that's one argument against it. However we do have pretty names that map to these ports via udev rules, but not sure if we should change the name just to prepend 0s. Amit _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
