linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] genirq: Bump the size of the local variable for sprintf()

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: <aCcAP3eIn5XmNALA@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 12:07:11 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] genirq: Bump the size of the local variable for
 sprintf()

On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 06:45:04AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 15. 05. 25, 10:55, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> > -	char name [10];
> > +	char name [12];
> 
> The max irq is ~ 512000, if I am counting correctly, so 7 B should be
> actually enough for everybody ;).

GCC can't proved it. And FWIW, on current Debian unstable (GCC 14?) I can't
reproduce this. In any case this doesn't increase stack usage AFAICT, the array
already have reserved 12 or 16 bytes.

> But well, can we silence the warning in a better way? I doubt that...

With the above said, I think it's pretty much close to the best way.
But if you find anything better, I also would like to learn.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko