[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0282be6f-e8ac-4428-a2ac-1ea6b7c25f4a@linux.dev>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 16:30:20 +0800
From: Kunwu Chan <kunwu.chan@...ux.dev>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc: trondmy@...nel.org, anna@...nel.org, chuck.lever@...cle.com,
jlayton@...nel.org, kolga@...app.com, Dai.Ngo@...cle.com, tom@...pey.com,
davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kunwu Chan <chentao@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SUNRPC: Fix -Wformat-truncation warning
Thanks for your reply.
On 2024/8/14 18:28, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2024, kunwu.chan@...ux.dev wrote:
>> From: Kunwu Chan <chentao@...inos.cn>
>>
>> Increase size of the servername array to avoid truncated output warning.
>>
>> net/sunrpc/clnt.c:582:75: error:‘%s’ directive output may be truncated
>> writing up to 107 bytes into a region of size 48
>> [-Werror=format-truncation=]
>> 582 | snprintf(servername, sizeof(servername), "%s",
>> | ^~
>>
>> net/sunrpc/clnt.c:582:33: note:‘snprintf’ output
>> between 1 and 108 bytes into a destination of size 48
>> 582 | snprintf(servername, sizeof(servername), "%s",
>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> 583 | sun->sun_path);
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kunwu Chan <chentao@...inos.cn>
>> ---
>> net/sunrpc/clnt.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/clnt.c b/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
>> index 09f29a95f2bc..874085f3ed50 100644
>> --- a/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
>> +++ b/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
>> @@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ struct rpc_clnt *rpc_create(struct rpc_create_args *args)
>> .connect_timeout = args->connect_timeout,
>> .reconnect_timeout = args->reconnect_timeout,
>> };
>> - char servername[48];
>> + char servername[108];
> If we choose this approach to removing the warning, then we should use
> UNIX_PATH_MAX rather than 108.
My negligence.
>
> However the longest server name copied in here will in practice be
> /var/run/rpcbind.sock
>
> so the extra 60 bytes on the stack is wasted ... maybe that doesn't
> matter.
I'm thinking about use a dynamic space alloc method like kasprintf to
avoid space waste.
> The string is only used by xprt_create_transport() which requires it to
> be less than RPC_MAXNETNAMELEN - which is 256.
> So maybe that would be a better value to use for the array size .... if
> we assume that stack space isn't a problem.
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I read the
xprt_create_transport, the RPC_MAXNETNAMELEN
is only use to xprt_create_transport .
> What ever number we use, I'd rather it was a defined constant, and not
> an apparently arbitrary number.
Whether we could check the sun->sun_path length before using snprintf?
The array size should smaller
than the minimum of sun->sun_path and RPC_MAXNETNAMELEN.
Or use the dynamic space allocate method to save space.
>
> Thanks,
> NeilBrown
>
>
>> struct rpc_clnt *clnt;
>> int i;
>>
>> --
>> 2.40.1
>>
>>
--
Thanks,
Kunwu.Chan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists