linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net] can: can327: fix snprintf() limit in can327_handle

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: <7d4b176b-6b44-450b-ab2d-847e5199d1b9@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 00:24:17 +0900
From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>, Max Staudt <max@...as.org>,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] can: can327: fix snprintf() limit in
 can327_handle_prompt()

On 15/11/2024 at 00:08, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> I'm happy to re-write the commit message.  Changing snprintf to sprintf() makes
> me so much less happy...

OK. Let me amend my previous message. I kind of understood from the past
exchanges that Max will take the ownership of this patch and credit you
a with a Reported-by: tag.

If you keep the ownership of the patch, then that's a different story :)

I do not want to make you sad and I am fine with your preferred approach.

Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol