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:   Wed, 18 Jan 2023 09:35:00 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>,
        coverity-bot <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>,
        linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Coverity: console_prepend_dropped(): Memory - corruptions
Message-ID: <Y8c+tFWFeH272Z1/@google.com>
References: <202301131544.D9E804CCD@keescook>
 <Y8KAhaiZQOWTcfyF@google.com>
 <Y8V8tqMJeB7t+rcJ@alley>
 <Y8YRBo7ZmtzWT4J1@google.com>
 <877cxl3abr.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
 <Y8ZTlVX3HQUVkU13@google.com>
 <Y8aEdDxQrQICQtem@alley>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y8aEdDxQrQICQtem@alley>
Precedence: bulk

On (23/01/17 12:20), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > Oh, yes, I agree that snprintf() should be replaced. Maybe we can go
> > even a bit furhter and replace all snprintf()-s in kernel/printk/*
> > (well, in a similar fashion, just in case). I'm just trying to understand
> > what type of assumptions does coverity make here and so far everything
> > looks rather peculiar.
> 
> Note that we sometimes need snprintf() to compute the needed size
> of the buffer. For example, vsnprintf() in vprintk_store() is
> correct.

Oh, right, that's an excellebt point.