linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel/rcutorture.c: use scnprintf() instead of sprintf()

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]

Message-ID: <525DF4F0.3070901@asianux.com>
Date:	Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:07:44 +0800
From:	Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	josh@...edesktop.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/rcutorture.c: use scnprintf() instead of sprintf()

On 10/15/2013 10:47 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 08:32:41PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>> Yeah, that is a way for it. It seems you (related maintainer) like
>> additional fix for it.
>>
>> Hmm... I will try within this week (although I don't think it is quite
>> necessary to me).
>>
>> :-)
> 
> If you always ensure that the buffer is big enough, do you really need
> the checking?
> 

Since they are all normal static functions: Of cause not need length
checking, either don't need return value, either don't need local
variable 'cnt'.

>>
>> Excuse me, my English is not quite well, I am not quite understand your
>> meaning.
>>
>> I guess your meaning is: "after find a simple/acceptable solution, we
>> can think of more, it may be more efficient".
>>
>> If what I guess is correct, It is OK to me -- since at least, it is not
>> an 'urgent' thing (for 'important' thing, your idea is more efficient,
>> although for 'urgent' thing, it is not).
> 
> That is important as well -- the first solution you think of might not
> be the right one.
> 

In my opinion, my first solution is correct, simple, and acceptable
enough for a test module, although it may be not the simplest, or not
most acceptable one.

> My point is related.  If you believe you found a bug by inspection,
> it is often worth testing to be sure.  Especially if the code in
> question is at all complex.
> 

Yeah, "it is often worth testing to be sure": it is related with test
case which based on the demands (so demands/requirement is the first),
in fact, most of maintainers will not give much focus on a test module.

The reason why I still will spend more time resource on test module is:
"since the related maintainer wants to focus on it, if it isn't urgent,
I will spend more time resource on it".

For 'important' but not 'urgent' thing (I assume your demands belong to
'important' thing), often need a trigger, if no triggers, better not
touch it now (it is not quite efficient). Now you are the 'trigger'. ;-)

> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> 
> 

Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang
--
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/