[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202404081620.551120F8EC@keescook>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 16:20:32 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>,
Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, Finn Thain <fthain@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] checkpatch: add check for snprintf to scnprintf
On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 08:53:33PM +0000, Justin Stitt wrote:
> I am going to quote Lee Jones who has been doing some snprintf ->
> scnprintf refactorings:
>
> "There is a general misunderstanding amongst engineers that
> {v}snprintf() returns the length of the data *actually* encoded into the
> destination array. However, as per the C99 standard {v}snprintf()
> really returns the length of the data that *would have been* written if
> there were enough space for it. This misunderstanding has led to
> buffer-overruns in the past. It's generally considered safer to use the
> {v}scnprintf() variants in their place (or even sprintf() in simple
> cases). So let's do that."
>
> To help prevent new instances of snprintf() from popping up, let's add a
> check to checkpatch.pl.
>
> Suggested-by: Finn Thain <fthain@...ux-m68k.org>
> Signed-off-by: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists