[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221122121223.265d6d97@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 12:12:23 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Kosyh <pkosyh@...dex.ru>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
lvc-project@...uxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mlx4: use snprintf() instead of sprintf() for safety
On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 16:48:15 +0200 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 04:04:53PM +0300, Peter Kosyh wrote:
> > Use snprintf() to avoid the potential buffer overflow. Although in the
> > current code this is hardly possible, the safety is unclean.
>
> Let's fix the tools instead. The kernel code is correct.
I'm guessing the code is correct because port can't be a high value?
Otherwise, if I'm counting right, large enough port representation
(e.g. 99999999) could overflow the string. If that's the case - how
would they "fix the tool" to know the port is always a single digit?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists