netdev - Re: [PATCH] SUNRPC: Fix -Wformat-truncation warning

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: <59d78829-6744-420c-bb8e-f015ca76ecae@linux.dev>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 09:52:56 +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 2024/8/15 19:39, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024, Kunwu Chan wrote:
>> 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.
> I think that dynamically allocating space is not a good idea.  It means
> you have to handle failure which is just a waste of code.
>
> I'd suggest simply changing the array to RPC_MAXNETNAMELEN.
I'll follow your suggestion and change it in v2.
>
> NeilBrown
>
>
>
>>> Thanks,
>>> NeilBrown
>>>
>>>
>>>>    	struct rpc_clnt *clnt;
>>>>    	int i;
>>>>    
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.40.1
>>>>
>>>>
>> -- 
>> Thanks,
>>     Kunwu.Chan
>>
>>
-- 
Thanks,
   Kunwu.Chan