linux-kernel - Re: [Cocci] [PATCH] usb: atm: don't use snprintf() for sysfs attrs

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <526af204ddf95f94012c6132d12693852bfe7442.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Aug 2020 01:10:06 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Denis Efremov <efremov@...ux.com>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cocci <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>,
        Alex Dewar <alex.dewar90@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [Cocci] [PATCH] usb: atm: don't use snprintf() for sysfs attrs

On Fri, 2020-08-28 at 00:58 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 09:12:06PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Perhaps something like the below with a sample conversion
> > that uses single and multiple sysfs_emit uses.
> 
> On quick review, I like it. :)
> 
> > [...]
> > +int sysfs_emit(char *buf, char *pos, const char *fmt, ...)
> > +{
> > +	int len;
> > +	va_list args;
> > +
> > +	WARN(pos < buf, "pos < buf\n");
> > +	WARN(pos - buf >= PAGE_SIZE, "pos >= PAGE_SIZE (%tu > %lu)\n",
> > +	     pos - buf, PAGE_SIZE);
> > +	if (pos < buf || pos - buf >= PAGE_SIZE)
> > +		return 0;
> 
> This can be:
> 
> 	if (WARN(pos < buf, "pos < buf\n") ||
> 	    WARN(pos - buf >= PAGE_SIZE, "pos >= PAGE_SIZE (%tu > %lu)\n",
> 		 pos - buf, PAGE_SIZE))
> 		return 0;

I had some vague recollection that WARN could be compiled
away to nothing somehow.  True or false?

If false, sure, of course, it'd be faster too.