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

Kunwu Chan
2024-08-16T01:53:05Z

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@linux.dev wrote:
>>>> From: Kunwu Chan <chentao@kylinos.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@kylinos.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