Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] lib/vsprintf: Fixes size check

[Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>]

On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 11:54:27 +0200
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 10:41:58PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Mar 2026 22:27:31 +0900
> > "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Here is the 5th version of patches to fix vsnprintf().
> > > 
> > >  - Fix to limit the size of width and precision.
> > >  - Warn if the return size is over INT_MAX.
> > > 
> > > Previous version is here;
> > > 
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/177440550682.147866.1854734911195480940.stgit@devnote2/
> > > 
> > > In this version, negative precision is treated as zero to match the
> > > previous behavior and check the field/precision passed as string
> > > literals too[1/2]. Also, update bstr_printf() not to return negative
> > > value[2/2].
> 
> > BTW, skip_atoi() is used for converting precision and width,
> > but this does not check the overflow. This is expected to be
> > checked by compiler (-Wformat-overflow) but it checks the
> > width <= INT_MAX, but precision <= LONG_MAX (why?) and clang
> > does not check precision.
> > 
> > To avoid this issue, below fix is needed, but I'm not sure
> > this is meaningful check, because with [1/2] change, the
> > return value is limited anyway, and it's easy to check
> > during the review process if an obviously abnormal
> > precision value is passed in the format string.
> 
> > diff --git a/lib/vsprintf.c b/lib/vsprintf.c
> 
> I you event want to do that, it should use macros from overflow.h,
> also see how kstrto*() and memparse() perform such checks. Also
> this may slow down the conversion.

Agreed, I don't want to push it. Since this overflow currently
only happens on precision and only by string literals, I think
it is better to be checked by review process.

Thank you,

> 
> -- 
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
> 
> 


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>