From: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Jassi Brar <jassi.brar@samsung.com>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@nokia.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood <lrg@slimlogic.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [patch] ASoC: soc: snprintf() doesn't return negative
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:40:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101012104022.GA6742@bicker> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101012095605.GC30933@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main>
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:56:05AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:49:27AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > Argh, yes, I'm (again) confused by that behavior.
> > The problem is the potential buffer overflow, indeed. snprintf()
> > returns the size that would be printed. Thus a safe code would be
> > like:
> >
> > list_for_each_entry(dai, &dai_list, list) {
> > int len = snprintf(buf + ret, PAGE_SIZE - ret, "%s\n", dai->name);
> > if (len < 0)
> > continue;
> > ret += len;
> > if (ret >= PAGE_SIZE) {
> > ret = PAGE_SIZE;
> > break;
> > }
> > }
>
> Yes, this form is better for that variant of the loop - that is safe and
> legible without relying on current implementation details of snprintf().
This is fine with me as well. My original patch had a problem with the
WARN_ON() so your version is better.
regards,
dan carpenter
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Jassi Brar <jassi.brar@samsung.com>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@nokia.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood <lrg@slimlogic.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [patch] ASoC: soc: snprintf() doesn't return negative
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:40:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101012104022.GA6742@bicker> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101012095605.GC30933@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main>
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:56:05AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:49:27AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > Argh, yes, I'm (again) confused by that behavior.
> > The problem is the potential buffer overflow, indeed. snprintf()
> > returns the size that would be printed. Thus a safe code would be
> > like:
> >
> > list_for_each_entry(dai, &dai_list, list) {
> > int len = snprintf(buf + ret, PAGE_SIZE - ret, "%s\n", dai->name);
> > if (len < 0)
> > continue;
> > ret += len;
> > if (ret >= PAGE_SIZE) {
> > ret = PAGE_SIZE;
> > break;
> > }
> > }
>
> Yes, this form is better for that variant of the loop - that is safe and
> legible without relying on current implementation details of snprintf().
This is fine with me as well. My original patch had a problem with the
WARN_ON() so your version is better.
regards,
dan carpenter
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>, Liam Girdwood <lrg@slimlogic.co.uk>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>,
Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@nokia.com>,
Jassi Brar <jassi.brar@samsung.com>,
alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] ASoC: soc: snprintf() doesn't return negative
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:40:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101012104022.GA6742@bicker> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101012095605.GC30933@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main>
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:56:05AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:49:27AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > Argh, yes, I'm (again) confused by that behavior.
> > The problem is the potential buffer overflow, indeed. snprintf()
> > returns the size that would be printed. Thus a safe code would be
> > like:
> >
> > list_for_each_entry(dai, &dai_list, list) {
> > int len = snprintf(buf + ret, PAGE_SIZE - ret, "%s\n", dai->name);
> > if (len < 0)
> > continue;
> > ret += len;
> > if (ret >= PAGE_SIZE) {
> > ret = PAGE_SIZE;
> > break;
> > }
> > }
>
> Yes, this form is better for that variant of the loop - that is safe and
> legible without relying on current implementation details of snprintf().
This is fine with me as well. My original patch had a problem with the
WARN_ON() so your version is better.
regards,
dan carpenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-12 10:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-11 3:54 [patch] ASoC: soc: snprintf() doesn't return negative Dan Carpenter
2010-10-11 3:54 ` Dan Carpenter
2010-10-11 10:07 ` Liam Girdwood
2010-10-11 10:07 ` Liam Girdwood
2010-10-11 10:40 ` Mark Brown
2010-10-11 10:40 ` Mark Brown
2010-10-11 16:40 ` Dan Carpenter
2010-10-11 16:40 ` Dan Carpenter
2010-10-11 16:40 ` Dan Carpenter
2010-10-11 18:51 ` Mark Brown
2010-10-11 18:51 ` Mark Brown
2010-10-11 18:51 ` Mark Brown
2010-10-11 19:45 ` Dan Carpenter
2010-10-11 19:45 ` Dan Carpenter
2010-10-11 19:45 ` Dan Carpenter
2010-10-11 20:57 ` Takashi Iwai
2010-10-11 20:57 ` Takashi Iwai
2010-10-11 20:57 ` Takashi Iwai
2010-10-12 9:35 ` Mark Brown
2010-10-12 9:35 ` Mark Brown
2010-10-12 9:35 ` Mark Brown
2010-10-12 9:49 ` Takashi Iwai
2010-10-12 9:49 ` Takashi Iwai
2010-10-12 9:49 ` Takashi Iwai
2010-10-12 9:56 ` Mark Brown
2010-10-12 9:56 ` Mark Brown
2010-10-12 9:56 ` Mark Brown
2010-10-12 10:40 ` Dan Carpenter [this message]
2010-10-12 10:40 ` Dan Carpenter
2010-10-12 10:40 ` Dan Carpenter
2010-10-11 21:11 ` Dan Carpenter
2010-10-11 21:11 ` Dan Carpenter
2010-10-11 21:11 ` Dan Carpenter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20101012104022.GA6742@bicker \
--to=error27@gmail.com \
--cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
--cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=jassi.brar@samsung.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lrg@slimlogic.co.uk \
--cc=peter.ujfalusi@nokia.com \
--cc=tiwai@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.