lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [May]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] init: Do not warn on non-zero initcall return
From
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 09:43 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>> > --- a/init/main.c
>> > +++ b/init/main.c
>> > @@ -686,11 +686,8 @@ int __init_or_module do_one_initcall(initcall_t fn)
>> >
>> > msgbuf[0] = 0;
>> >
>> > - if (ret && ret != -ENODEV && initcall_debug)
>> > - sprintf(msgbuf, "error code %d ", ret);
>> > -
>> > if (preempt_count() != count) {
>> > - strlcat(msgbuf, "preemption imbalance ", sizeof(msgbuf));
>> > + sprintf(msgbuf, "preemption imbalance ");
>>
>> snprintf(), please?
>
> Why? The msgbuf is 64 bytes, this is the first occurrence and
> "preemption imbalance " is much less than 64 bytes.

The day after tomorrow, someone will modify the code, and cause a buffer
overflow.

I'm actually surprised (v)sprintf() is not tagged __deprecated.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-05-02 21:01    [W:5.986 / U:0.480 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site