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

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 20:33 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> 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.
> 

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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/