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

Date:   Wed, 9 Feb 2022 12:34:24 +0900
From:   Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.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 2022/02/09 12:16, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 2022/02/09 12:12, Joe Perches wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> It is. I dislike the useless line of code in this case :)
> 
>>
>> 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");
> 
> That is nice and can make that
> 	
> 	return sysfs_emit(buf, "%sready\n", csio_is_hw_ready(hw) ? "" : "not ");

Oops. You did have that one listed... Read too quickly...

> 
> too :)
> 


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research