There is a general misunderstanding amongst engineers that {v}snprintf()
returns the length of the data *actually* encoded into the destination
array. However, as per the C99 standard {v}snprintf() really returns
the length of the data that *would have been* written if there were
enough space for it. This misunderstanding has led to buffer-overruns
in the past. It's generally considered safer to use the {v}scnprintf()
variants in their place (or even sprintf() in simple cases).
Link: https://lwn.net/Articles/69419/
Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/105
Signed-off-by: Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rode...@gmail.com>
---
arch/arm/kernel/process.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
index e16ed102960c..9d768a93fb1c 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
@@ -186,8 +186,8 @@ void __show_regs(struct pt_regs *regs)
unsigned int transbase;
asm("mrc p15, 0, %0, c2, c0\n\t"
: "=r" (transbase));
- snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), " Table: %08x DAC: %08x",
- transbase, domain);
+ scnprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), " Table: %08x DAC: %08x",
+ transbase, domain);
}
#endif
asm("mrc p15, 0, %0, c1, c0\n" : "=r" (ctrl));
--
2.46.0
