linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] edac: Use scnprintf() for safer buffer handling

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: <SJ1PR11MB6083F39182C67204BA009618FC54A@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 16:00:11 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Wang Haoran <haoranwangsec@...il.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>
CC: "james.morse@....com" <james.morse@....com>, "mchehab@...nel.org"
	<mchehab@...nel.org>, "rric@...nel.org" <rric@...nel.org>,
	"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] edac: Use scnprintf() for safer buffer handling

> snprintf() is fragile when its return value will be used to append additional data to a buffer. Use scnprintf() instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wang Haoran (Vul337) <haoranwangsec@...il.com>

Patch looks good. But what does the "(Vul337)" in your Signed-off-by signify?

The scripts/checkpatch.pl tool complains:

CHECK: From:/Signed-off-by: email comments mismatch:
'From: Wang Haoran <haoranwangsec@...il.com>' != 'Signed-off-by: Wang Haoran (Vul337) <haoranwangsec@...il.com>'


May I just drop that from the Signed-off-by line? Or is it important to you?

-Tony