> On Nov 2, 2017, at 1:09 AM, Prashant Bhole <bhole_prashant...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> wrote:
>
> Use PATH_MAX instead of hardcoded array size 256
>
> Signed-off-by: Prashant Bhole <bhole_prashant...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> ---
> tools/bpf/bpf_jit_disasm.c | 3 ++-
> tools/bpf/bpftool/jit_disasm.c | 3 ++-
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpf_jit_disasm.c b/tools/bpf/bpf_jit_disasm.c
> index 422d9abd666a..75bf526a0168 100644
> --- a/tools/bpf/bpf_jit_disasm.c
> +++ b/tools/bpf/bpf_jit_disasm.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
> #include <sys/klog.h>
> #include <sys/types.h>
> #include <sys/stat.h>
> +#include <limits.h>
>
> #define CMD_ACTION_SIZE_BUFFER 10
> #define CMD_ACTION_READ_ALL 3
> @@ -51,7 +52,7 @@ static void get_exec_path(char *tpath, size_t size)
> static void get_asm_insns(uint8_t *image, size_t len, int opcodes)
> {
> int count, i, pc = 0;
> - char tpath[256];
> + char tpath[PATH_MAX];Seems like such a nice thing, *but* PATH_MAX is 4096. Can things really tolerate 4k on the stack here? > struct disassemble_info info; > disassembler_ftype disassemble; > bfd *bfdf; > diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/jit_disasm.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/jit_disasm.c > index 5937e134e408..1551d3918d4c 100644 > --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/jit_disasm.c > +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/jit_disasm.c > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ > #include <dis-asm.h> > #include <sys/types.h> > #include <sys/stat.h> > +#include <limits.h> > > #include "json_writer.h" > #include "main.h" > @@ -80,7 +81,7 @@ void disasm_print_insn(unsigned char *image, ssize_t len, > int opcodes) > disassembler_ftype disassemble; > struct disassemble_info info; > int count, i, pc = 0; > - char tpath[256]; > + char tpath[PATH_MAX]; Same comment here. > bfd *bfdf; > > if (!len) -- Mark Rustad, Networking Division, Intel Corporation
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
