Hi >-----Original Message----- >From: Parthasarathy, JananeeX M >Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 6:33 PM >To: Aaron Conole <acon...@redhat.com>; Poornima, PallantlaX ><pallantlax.poorn...@intel.com> >Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Pattan, Reshma <reshma.pat...@intel.com>; Rao, Nikhil ><nikhil....@intel.com>; sta...@dpdk.org >Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] test/eventdev: fix sprintf with snprintf > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Conole >>Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2019 2:50 AM >>To: Poornima, PallantlaX <pallantlax.poorn...@intel.com> >>Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Pattan, Reshma <reshma.pat...@intel.com>; Rao, Nikhil >><nikhil....@intel.com>; sta...@dpdk.org >>Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] test/eventdev: fix sprintf with >>snprintf >> >>Pallantla Poornima <pallantlax.poorn...@intel.com> writes: >> >>> sprintf function is not secure as it doesn't check the length of string. >>> More secure function snprintf is used. >>> >>> Fixes: 2a9c83ae3b ("test/eventdev: add multi-ports test") >>> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Pallantla Poornima <pallantlax.poorn...@intel.com> >>> --- >>> test/test/test_event_eth_rx_adapter.c | 3 ++- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/test/test/test_event_eth_rx_adapter.c >>> b/test/test/test_event_eth_rx_adapter.c >>> index 1d3be82b5..38f5c039f 100644 >>> --- a/test/test/test_event_eth_rx_adapter.c >>> +++ b/test/test/test_event_eth_rx_adapter.c >>> @@ -479,7 +479,8 @@ adapter_multi_eth_add_del(void) >>> /* add the max port for rx_adapter */ >>> port_index = rte_eth_dev_count_total(); >>> for (; port_index < RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS; port_index += 1) { >>> - sprintf(driver_name, "%s%u", "net_null", drv_id); >>> + snprintf(driver_name, sizeof(driver_name), "%s%u", "net_null", >>> + drv_id); >>> err = rte_vdev_init(driver_name, NULL); >>> TEST_ASSERT(err == 0, "Failed driver %s got %d", >>> driver_name, err); >> >>You call this a fix, but it's not possible for the value of drv_id to >>exceed '32' and the buffer size is plenty accommodating for that. Did >>I miss something? What is this fixing? > >It is better practice to use snprintf although in this case buffer will not >overflow >as size is big enough to accommodate. The changes were done mainly to >replace sprintf to snprintf. Probably we can remove "fix" line as it is not >issue in >this scenario. > >Thanks >M.P.Jananee
Please suggest if we can remove "fix" line. Thanks
