Re: [PATCH v2] init: Do not warn on non-zero initcall return

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 09:43 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/