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: <79bd93c0-52b6-45cf-9e65-1e3636b5d95e@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 12:23:17 +0200
From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
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 16. 05. 25, 11:07, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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.

Yes, sure, I am not disputing the fix.

>> 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.

Perhaps next in row would be using snprintf(), but dunno if it's better 
at all.

-- 
js
suse labs