On Sun, Oct 04, 2026 at 12:26:39AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 03, 2026 at 06:36:49PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 02, 2026 at 08:59:10PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
...
> > > static inline const char *seq_buf_str(struct seq_buf *s)
> > > {
> > > - if (WARN_ON(s->size == 0))
> > > + if (s->size == 0)
> > > return "";
> > >
> > > - if (seq_buf_buffer_left(s))
> > > - s->buffer[s->len] = 0;
> > > - else
> > > - s->buffer[s->size - 1] = 0;
> > > + __seq_buf_terminate(s);
> > >
> > > return s->buffer;
> > > }
> >
> > Looking at this again, can't it be rewritten now using _strlen()?
> >
> > if (seq_buf_strlen(s))
> > return s->buffer;
> >
> > return "";
> >
> > ?
>
> It could, but I'm vaguely nervous about the difference between
> s->buffer[0] == '\0'
> and
> .data ""
>
> i.e. we only force the return of seq_buf_str() to be _not_ just
> s->buffer when s->buffer is weirdly impossible (due to size == 0).
> I'd rather not make all 0-len strings return the .data segment's const
> "" string...
Good point. Perhaps then to add a short note to the kernel doc,
so we won't see patches based on the suggestion like I gave?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
