linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: event, use scnprintf instead of snprintf

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200109080330.GA2579993@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Jan 2020 09:03:30 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     liuyang34 <yangliuxm34@...il.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        Richard Fontana <rfontana@...hat.com>,
        Allison Randal <allison@...utok.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        liuyang34 <liuyang34@...omi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: event, use scnprintf instead of snprintf

On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 02:36:26PM +0800, liuyang34 wrote:
> the return size will low than PAGE_SIZE but maybe over 40 in show_sysctl_tfa,
> so use scnprintf instead of snprintf to get real size
> 
> Signed-off-by: liuyang34 <liuyang34@...omi.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/events/intel/core.c    | 6 +++---
>  arch/x86/events/intel/pt.c      | 2 +-
>  arch/x86/platform/uv/uv_sysfs.c | 4 ++--
>  3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> index 3be51aa..bf287b4 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> @@ -4372,7 +4372,7 @@ static ssize_t show_sysctl_tfa(struct device *cdev,
>  			      struct device_attribute *attr,
>  			      char *buf)
>  {
> -	return snprintf(buf, 40, "%d\n", allow_tsx_force_abort);
> +	return scnprintf(buf, 40, "%d\n", allow_tsx_force_abort);

No, just use sprintf() for all of these.  We "know" the buffer size is
big enough for a single number.  There's no need for fancy checks for
any sysfs file.

thanks,

greg k-h