linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix application of sizeof to pointer

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: <20211011230633.262b54a5@oasis.local.home>
Date:   Mon, 11 Oct 2021 23:06:33 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     davidcomponentone@...il.com
Cc:     Viktor.Rosendahl@....de, colin.king@...onical.com,
        vulab@...as.ac.cn, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Zeal Robot <zealci@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix application of sizeof to pointer

On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 10:54:24 +0800
davidcomponentone@...il.com wrote:

> From: David Yang <davidcomponentone@...il.com>
> 
> The coccinelle check report:
> "./tools/tracing/latency/latency-collector.c:1541:10-16:
> ERROR: application of sizeof to pointer"
> Using the "strlen" to fix it.
> 
> Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@....com.cn>
> Signed-off-by: David Yang <davidcomponentone@...il.com>
> ---
>  tools/tracing/latency/latency-collector.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/tracing/latency/latency-collector.c b/tools/tracing/latency/latency-collector.c
> index 3a2e6bb781a8..b131007e6c70 100644
> --- a/tools/tracing/latency/latency-collector.c
> +++ b/tools/tracing/latency/latency-collector.c
> @@ -1538,7 +1538,7 @@ static void tracing_loop(void)
>  				mutex_lock(&print_mtx);
>  				check_signals();
>  				write_or_die(fd_stdout, queue_full_warning,
> -					     sizeof(queue_full_warning));
> +					     strlen(queue_full_warning) + 1);

Really, the +1, although would match if queue_full_warning was an
array, but in this use case, there's no reason to pass the nul
character to the write.

-- Steve


>  				mutex_unlock(&print_mtx);
>  			}
>  			modified--;