On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 03:43:55AM +0300, Enchanted Hunter wrote: > This patch replaces unsafe sprintf calls with snprintf > infbtft_register_framebuffer() to prevent potential buffer > overflow.Signed-off-by: rat1bor <[email protected]>
> From a79c6098f2e8bb2ee9e276d339710522175db977 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: rat1bor <[email protected]> > Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2026 03:18:59 +0300 > Subject: [PATCH] staging: fbtft: replace sprintf with snprintf > > Signed-off-by: rat1bor <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c | 7 ++++--- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c > b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c > index ca0c38221c16..66509347255a 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c > @@ -784,10 +784,11 @@ int fbtft_register_framebuffer(struct fb_info *fb_info) > fbtft_sysfs_init(par); > > if (par->txbuf.buf && par->txbuf.len >= 1024) > - sprintf(text1, ", %zu KiB buffer memory", par->txbuf.len >> 10); > + snprintf(text1, sizeof(text1), ", %zu KiB buffer memory", > par->txbuf.len >> 10); > if (spi) > - sprintf(text2, ", spi%d.%d at %d MHz", spi->controller->bus_num, > - spi_get_chipselect(spi, 0), spi->max_speed_hz / > 1000000); > + snprintf(text2, sizeof(text2), ", spi%d.%d at %d MHz", > + spi->controller->bus_num, spi_get_chipselect(spi, 0), > + spi->max_speed_hz / 1000000); > fb_dbg(fb_info, > "%s frame buffer, %dx%d, %d KiB video memory%s, fps=%lu%s\n", > fb_info->fix.id, fb_info->var.xres, fb_info->var.yres, > -- > 2.34.1 > Hi, This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux kernel tree. You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s) as indicated below: - Your patch was attached, please place it inline so that it can be applied directly from the email message itself. - You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed, or possibly, any description at all, in the email body. Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what is needed in order to properly describe the change. - You did not write a descriptive Subject: for the patch, allowing Greg, and everyone else, to know what this patch is all about. Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what a proper Subject: line should look like. - It looks like you did not use your "real" name for the patch on either the Signed-off-by: line, or the From: line (both of which have to match). Please read the kernel file, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for how to do this correctly. If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received from other developers. thanks, greg k-h's patch email bot
