Hi Michal, On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 09:53:31AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 07-07-25 09:46:12, Marco Elver wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 at 07:06, Alejandro Colomar <a...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > We were wasting a byte due to an off-by-one bug. s[c]nprintf() > > > doesn't write more than $2 bytes including the null byte, so trying to > > > pass 'size-1' there is wasting one byte. Now that we use seprintf(), > > > the situation isn't different: seprintf() will stop writing *before* > > > 'end' --that is, at most the terminating null byte will be written at > > > 'end-1'--. > > > > > > Fixes: bc8fbc5f305a (2021-02-26; "kfence: add test suite") > > > Fixes: 8ed691b02ade (2022-10-03; "kmsan: add tests for KMSAN") > > > > Not sure about the Fixes - this means it's likely going to be > > backported to stable kernels, which is not appropriate. There's no > > functional problem, and these are tests only, so not worth the churn. > > As long as there is no actual bug fixed then I believe those Fixes tags > are more confusing than actually helpful. And that applies to other > patches in this series as well.
For the dead code, I can remove the fixes tags, and even the changes themselves, since there are good reasons to keep the dead code (consistency, and avoiding a future programmer forgetting to add it back when adding a subsequent seprintf() call). For the fixes to UB, do you prefer the Fixes tags to be removed too? Have a lovely day! Alex > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
