From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH] atm/clip: Use seq_puts() in svc_addr() Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 00:58:05 +0200 Message-ID: References: <97636808-1d9f-d196-ebce-fbd2505c50e2@users.sourceforge.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: netdev , Bhumika Goyal , "David S. Miller" , David Windsor , Elena Reshetova , Hans Liljestrand , Johannes Berg , Kees Cook , Roopa Prabhu , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org To: SF Markus Elfring Return-path: Received: from mail-qk0-f195.google.com ([209.85.220.195]:39313 "EHLO mail-qk0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754738AbeAGW6H (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Jan 2018 17:58:07 -0500 In-Reply-To: <97636808-1d9f-d196-ebce-fbd2505c50e2@users.sourceforge.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 11:44 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring > Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 22:34:12 +0100 > > Two strings should be quickly put into a sequence by two function calls. > Thus use the function "seq_puts" instead of "seq_printf". > > This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring > --- > net/atm/clip.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/atm/clip.c b/net/atm/clip.c > index d4f6029d5109..62a852165b19 100644 > --- a/net/atm/clip.c > +++ b/net/atm/clip.c > @@ -708,11 +708,11 @@ static void svc_addr(struct seq_file *seq, struct sockaddr_atmsvc *addr) > static int e164[] = { 1, 8, 4, 6, 1, 0 }; > > if (*addr->sas_addr.pub) { > - seq_printf(seq, "%s", addr->sas_addr.pub); > + seq_puts(seq, addr->sas_addr.pub); Which opens a lot of security concerns. Never do this again. > if (*addr->sas_addr.prv) > seq_putc(seq, '+'); > } else if (!*addr->sas_addr.prv) { > - seq_printf(seq, "%s", "(none)"); > + seq_puts(seq, "(none)"); ...while this one is okay per se, better to keep above pattern (same style over the piece of code / function). > return; > } > if (*addr->sas_addr.prv) { > -- > 2.15.1 > P.S. I'm wondering what would be first, Markus starts looking into the actual code, or most (all) of the maintainers just ban him. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko