On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 17:47 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> gcc-7 notices that the pin_table is an array of 16-bit numbers,
> but fails to take the following range check into account:
>
> drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c: In function 'acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupt':
> drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c:206:24: warning: '%02X' directive writing between
> 2 and 4 bytes into a region of size 3 [-Wformat-overflow=]
> sprintf(ev_name, "_%c%02X",
> ^~~~
> drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c:206:20: note: directive argument in the range [0,
> 65535]
> sprintf(ev_name, "_%c%02X",
> ^~~~~~~~~
> drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c:206:3: note: 'sprintf' output between 5 and 7
> bytes into a destination of size 5
> sprintf(ev_name, "_%c%02X",
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> agpio->triggering == ACPI_EDGE_SENSITIVE ? 'E' : 'L',
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> pin);
> ~~~~
>
> As suggested by Andy, this changes the format string to have a fixed length.
> Since modifying the range check did not help, I also opened a bug against
> gcc, see link below.
The code has
int pin
does changing pin to unsigned int matter?
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
[]
> @@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ static acpi_status acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupt(struct
> acpi_resource *ares,
>
> if (pin <= 255) {
> char ev_name[5];
> - sprintf(ev_name, "_%c%02X",
> + sprintf(ev_name, "_%c%02hhX",
> agpio->triggering == ACPI_EDGE_SENSITIVE ? 'E' : 'L',
> pin);
> if (ACPI_SUCCESS(acpi_get_handle(handle, ev_name, &evt_handle)))
