Re: [patch] drm/amd: cleanup get_mfd_cell_dev()
From: walter harms
Date: Sat Feb 27 2016 - 06:18:26 EST
Am 27.02.2016 11:40, schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 10:50:40AM +0100, walter harms wrote:
>> Am 25.02.2016 08:47, schrieb Dan Carpenter:
>>> It's simpler to just use snprintf() to print this to one buffer instead
>>> of using strcpy() and strcat(). Also using snprintf() is slightly safer
>>> than using sprintf().
>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_acp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_acp.c
>>> index 9f8cfaa..d6b0bff 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_acp.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_acp.c
>>> @@ -240,12 +240,10 @@ static int acp_poweron(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd)
>>> static struct device *get_mfd_cell_dev(const char *device_name, int r)
>>> char auto_dev_name;
>>> - char buf;
>>> struct device *dev;
>>> - sprintf(buf, ".%d.auto", r);
>>> - strcpy(auto_dev_name, device_name);
>>> - strcat(auto_dev_name, buf);
>>> + snprintf(auto_dev_name, sizeof(auto_dev_name),
>>> + "%s.%d.auto", device_name, r);
>>> dev = bus_find_device_by_name(&platform_bus_type, NULL, auto_dev_name);
>>> dev_info(dev, "device %s added to pm domain\n", auto_dev_name);
>> i tried to understand what is the base for char auto_dev_name. It is not clear
>> from these snipped if that is large or small.
>> (To be aware i assume that
>> get_mfd_cell_dev("terrible_long_and_Stupid_name",1234567899346712) will never happen
>> but i could find no reason)
>> A small comment that explains the magic 25 would be nice.
> I have no idea, either of course. For example,
> mc13xxx_add_subdevice_pdata() assumes device_name by itself can be 30
> characters. Hence the change to snprintf.
i also think that this limit is artificial, one of those "it works" things.
The problem is that i have seen changes in the naming als ready done, like the
shift from /dev/sda to things like /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-SATA_WDC_WD5000AAKS-_WD-WCASY5869245-part1
and you are out of the game here. snprintf will cut the tail and the %d.auto stuff is dead in the water.
To make it clear, I do not thing that is security related issue but it could result in annoying
failures. (the solution is obviously to use asprintf() and free the mem later :) ).