On Mon 07-07-25 16:42:43, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > 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?
Are any of those UB a real or just theoretical problems? To be more precise I do not question to have those plugged but is there any evidence that older kernels would need those as well other than just in case? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
