linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: csiostor: replace snprintf with sysfs

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: <f4b63b5a4177e38dd80f102f87bbec3ea77d9fe8.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Tue, 08 Feb 2022 19:12:43 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>,
        davidcomponentone@...il.com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com
Cc:     martin.petersen@...cle.com, bvanassche@....org,
        yang.guang5@....com.cn, jiapeng.chong@...ux.alibaba.com,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Zeal Robot <zealci@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: csiostor: replace snprintf with sysfs_emit

On Wed, 2022-02-09 at 11:36 +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 2/9/22 09:40, davidcomponentone@...il.com wrote:
> > From: Yang Guang <yang.guang5@....com.cn>
> > 
> > coccinelle report:
> > ./drivers/scsi/csiostor/csio_scsi.c:1433:8-16:
> > WARNING: use scnprintf or sprintf
> > ./drivers/scsi/csiostor/csio_scsi.c:1369:9-17:
> > WARNING: use scnprintf or sprintf
> > ./drivers/scsi/csiostor/csio_scsi.c:1479:8-16:
> > WARNING: use scnprintf or sprintf
> > 
> > Use sysfs_emit instead of scnprintf or sprintf makes more sense.
[]
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/csiostor/csio_scsi.c b/drivers/scsi/csiostor/csio_scsi.c
[]
> > @@ -1366,9 +1366,9 @@ csio_show_hw_state(struct device *dev,
> >  	struct csio_hw *hw = csio_lnode_to_hw(ln);
> >  
> >  	if (csio_is_hw_ready(hw))
> > -		return snprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE, "ready\n");
> > +		return sysfs_emit(buf, "ready\n");
> >  	else
> > -		return snprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE, "not ready\n");
> > +		return sysfs_emit(buf, "not ready\n");
> 
> While at it, you could remove the useless "else" above.

Or not.  It's fine as is.  It's just a style preference.

Another style option would be to use a ?: like any of

	return sysfs_emit(buf, "%sready\n", csio_is_hw_ready(hw) ? "" : "not ");
or
	return sysfs_emit(buf, "%s\n", csio_is_hw_ready(hw) ? "ready" : "not ready");
or
	return sysfs_emit(buf, csio_is_hw_ready(hw) ? "ready\n" : "not ready\n");