Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2022 20:43:41 -0800
From:   Saeed Mahameed <saeed@kernel.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>, Peter Kosyh <pkosyh@yandex.ru>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        lvc-project@linuxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mlx4: use snprintf() instead of sprintf() for safety
Message-ID: <Y32k/ZGQhNR9iM2F@x130.lan>
References: <20221122130453.730657-1-pkosyh@yandex.ru>
 <Y3zhL0/OItHF1R03@unreal>
 <20221122121223.265d6d97@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221122121223.265d6d97@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On 22 Nov 12:12, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 16:48:15 +0200 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 04:04:53PM +0300, Peter Kosyh wrote:
>> > Use snprintf() to avoid the potential buffer overflow. Although in the
>> > current code this is hardly possible, the safety is unclean.
>>
>> Let's fix the tools instead. The kernel code is correct.
>
>I'm guessing the code is correct because port can't be a high value?
>Otherwise, if I'm counting right, large enough port representation
>(e.g. 99999999) could overflow the string. If that's the case - how
>would they "fix the tool" to know the port is always a single digit?

+1 

FWIW,

Reviewed-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeed@kernel.org>