On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 20:33 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 09:43 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > --- a/init/main.c > >> > +++ b/init/main.c > >> > @@ -686,11 +686,8 @@ int __init_or_module do_one_initcall(initcall_t fn) > >> > > >> > msgbuf[0] = 0; > >> > > >> > - if (ret && ret != -ENODEV && initcall_debug) > >> > - sprintf(msgbuf, "error code %d ", ret); > >> > - > >> > if (preempt_count() != count) { > >> > - strlcat(msgbuf, "preemption imbalance ", sizeof(msgbuf)); > >> > + sprintf(msgbuf, "preemption imbalance "); > >> > >> snprintf(), please? > > > > Why? The msgbuf is 64 bytes, this is the first occurrence and > > "preemption imbalance " is much less than 64 bytes. > > The day after tomorrow, someone will modify the code, and cause a buffer > overflow. > > I'm actually surprised (v)sprintf() is not tagged __deprecated. >
I actually did think for a second in adding that. Not sure why I didn't. Probably just because the original code didn't do that. But I'll let that clean up come another day by someone else. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
