linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] usb: Add checks for snprintf() calls in usb_alloc

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aAPO3P1_-C7Nhil4@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:27:08 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] usb: Add checks for snprintf() calls in
 usb_alloc_dev()

On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 06:49:49PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> When creating a device path in the driver the snprintf() takes
> up to 16 characters long argument along with the additional up to
> 12 characters for the signed integer (as it can't see the actual limits)
> and tries to pack this into 16 bytes array. GCC complains about that
> when build with `make W=1`:
> 
>   drivers/usb/core/usb.c:705:25: note: ‘snprintf’ output between 3 and 28 bytes into a destination of size 16
> 
> Since everything works until now, let's just check for the potential
> buffer overflow and bail out. It is most likely a never happen situation,
> but at least it makes GCC happy.

Any comments anybody?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko