Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32;
From:   Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
To:     ericvh@kernel.org, lucho@ionkov.net, asmadeus@codewreck.org,
        Su Hui <suhui@nfschina.com>, v9fs@lists.linux.dev
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/9p/xattr.c: avoid format-overflow warning
Date:   Mon, 09 Oct 2023 20:34:15 +0200
Message-ID: <13910281.Zj71IQSfG8@silver>
In-Reply-To: <20231008060138.517057-1-suhui@nfschina.com>
References: <20231008060138.517057-1-suhui@nfschina.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 8:01:39 AM CEST Su Hui wrote:
> with gcc and W=3D1 option, there's a warning like this:
>=20
> In file included from fs/9p/xattr.c:12:
> In function =E2=80=98v9fs_xattr_get=E2=80=99,
>     inlined from =E2=80=98v9fs_listxattr=E2=80=99 at fs/9p/xattr.c:142:9:
> include/net/9p/9p.h:55:2: error: =E2=80=98%s=E2=80=99 directive argument =
is null
> [-Werror=3Dformat-overflow=3D]
>    55 |  _p9_debug(level, __func__, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
>       |  ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>=20
> use "" replace NULL to silence this warning.
>=20
> Signed-off-by: Su Hui <suhui@nfschina.com>
> ---
>  fs/9p/xattr.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>=20
> diff --git a/fs/9p/xattr.c b/fs/9p/xattr.c
> index e00cf8109b3f..d995ee080835 100644
> --- a/fs/9p/xattr.c
> +++ b/fs/9p/xattr.c
> @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ int v9fs_fid_xattr_set(struct p9_fid *fid, const char=
 *name,
> =20
>  ssize_t v9fs_listxattr(struct dentry *dentry, char *buffer, size_t buffe=
r_size)
>  {
> -	return v9fs_xattr_get(dentry, NULL, buffer, buffer_size);
> +	return v9fs_xattr_get(dentry, "", buffer, buffer_size);
>  }
> =20
>  static int v9fs_xattr_handler_get(const struct xattr_handler *handler,
>=20

Mmm, that's not the same is it? Have you tested this change?

Currently this function causes a 'Txattrwalk' 9p message to be sent to 9p
server with its name[s] field being NULL, and the latter being the magical
hint to 9p server to not send an attribute, but rather the list of attribut=
es.

With your change I would assume that it would rather ask server for one
attribute called "". I have not tested myself, just worrying that it might
break behaviour.

/Christian