Re: [PATCH v2] ASoC: Intel: avs: Fix potential buffer overflow by snprintf()

[Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@intel.com>]

On 2025-11-12 8:20 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 11:48:51PM +0530, hariconscious@gmail.com wrote:
>> From: HariKrishna Sagala <hariconscious@gmail.com>
>>
>> snprintf() returns the would-be-filled size when the string overflows
>> the given buffer size, hence using this value may result in a buffer
>> overflow (although it's unrealistic).
> 
> unrealistic == impossible
> 
> So why make this change at all?

The problem will never occur in production-scenario given the AudioDSP 
firmware limitation - max ~10 probe-point entries so, the built string 
will be far away from 4K_SZ bytes.

If the verdict is: ignore the recommendation as the problem is 
unrealistic, I'm OK with that. Typically though I'd prefer to stick to 
the recommendations.

> 
>> This patch replaces it with a safer version, scnprintf() for papering
>> over such a potential issue.
> 
> Don't "paper over", actually fix real things.
> 
> 
>> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/105
>> 'Fixes: 5a565ba23abe ("ASoC: Intel: avs: Probing and firmware tracing
>> over debugfs")'
> 
> No, this is not a "fix".

The patch isn't worded well, that's clear.
While the patch is an outcome of static-analysis, isn't it good to have 
'Fixes:' to point out the offending commit regardless?