[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071111040950.GA2468@hacking>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:09:50 +0800
From: WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] time: fix
sysfs_show_{available,current}_clocksources() buffer overflow
problem
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 11:29:59AM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
>on 2007-11-8 20:11 WANG Cong wrote:
>>On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 07:47:41PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
>>>Yes, snprintf is safer than sprintf. But here, the 'count' will be
>>>mis-pointed when snprintf returns no less than PAGE_SIZE (what you called
>>>overflow). So you may also need:
>>>
>>> if (unlikely(count >= PAGE_SIZE))
>>> count = PAGE_SIZE - 1;
>>>
>>>Just a simple guess. ;)
>>
>>Or try scnprintf. ;)
>
>We have discussed this problem. We think that it is better to return the
>return
>value of kernel directly because this is the specification of the sysfs.
>
> (Version:2.6.24-rc2,File:Documentation/filesystems/sysfs.txt:198-201):
> 198 - show() methods should return the number of bytes printed into the
> 199 buffer. This is the return value of snprintf().
> 200
> 201 - show() should always use snprintf().
>
>And the function which calls the show() methods uses BUG_ON() to check the
>return value. If the return value is too big,it means something wrong.
>
>If we use scnprintf, we may not know whether the resulting string is
>truncated
>or not. Maybe A big bug is ignored.
>
Well, i know little about sysfs. So it was just a hint.
Anyway, thanks for your input!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists