linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH 03/10] scsi: NCR5380: Replace snprintf() with the safer scnprintf() variant

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 20:32:18 +1100 (AEDT)
From: Finn Thain <fthain@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
    linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>, 
    "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>, 
    "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>, drew@...orado.edu, 
    Thomas_Roesch@...maus.de, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] scsi: NCR5380: Replace snprintf() with the safer
 scnprintf() variant


On Thu, 8 Feb 2024, Lee Jones wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Confused... The return value is not used at all?
> 
> Future proofing. 
> 

Surely a better way to prevent potential future API abuse is by adding 
checkpatch.pl rules. That way does not generate churn.

James or Martin, if you can find some value in this patch, go ahead and 
apply it. I'm afraid I can't see it.