mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH] checkpatch: add check for snprintf to scnprintf
@ 2024-02-21 22:05 Justin Stitt
  2024-02-21 22:13 ` Justin Stitt
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Justin Stitt @ 2024-02-21 22:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andy Whitcroft, Joe Perches, Dwaipayan Ray, Lukas Bulwahn
  Cc: linux-kernel, Lee Jones, linux-hardening, Kees Cook, Finn Thain,
	Justin Stitt

I am going to quote Lee Jones who has been doing some snprintf ->
scnprintf refactorings:

"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).  So let's do that."

To help prevent new instances of snprintf() from popping up, let's add a
check to checkpatch.pl.

Suggested-by: Finn Thain <fthain@linux-m68k.org>
Signed-off-by: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>
---
From a discussion here [1].

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/0f9c95f9-2c14-eee6-7faf-635880edcea4@linux-m68k.org/
---
 scripts/checkpatch.pl | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index 9c4c4a61bc83..bb4e99c818a9 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -7012,6 +7012,12 @@ sub process {
 			     "Prefer strscpy, strscpy_pad, or __nonstring over strncpy - see: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/90\n" . $herecurr);
 		}
 
+# snprintf uses that should likely be {v}scnprintf
+		if ($line =~ /\snprintf\s*\(\s*/) {
+				WARN("SNPRINTF",
+				     "Prefer scnprintf over snprintf\n" . $herecurr);
+		}
+
 # ethtool_sprintf uses that should likely be ethtool_puts
 		if ($line =~ /\bethtool_sprintf\s*\(\s*$FuncArg\s*,\s*$FuncArg\s*\)/) {
 			if (WARN("PREFER_ETHTOOL_PUTS",

---
base-commit: b401b621758e46812da61fa58a67c3fd8d91de0d
change-id: 20240221-snprintf-checkpatch-a864ed67ebd0

Best regards,
--
Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add check for snprintf to scnprintf
  2024-02-21 22:05 [PATCH] checkpatch: add check for snprintf to scnprintf Justin Stitt
@ 2024-02-21 22:13 ` Justin Stitt
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Justin Stitt @ 2024-02-21 22:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andy Whitcroft, Joe Perches, Dwaipayan Ray, Lukas Bulwahn
  Cc: linux-kernel, Lee Jones, linux-hardening, Kees Cook, Finn Thain

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 2:05 PM Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com> wrote:
>
> I am going to quote Lee Jones who has been doing some snprintf ->
> scnprintf refactorings:
>
> "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).  So let's do that."
>
> To help prevent new instances of snprintf() from popping up, let's add a
> check to checkpatch.pl.
>
> Suggested-by: Finn Thain <fthain@linux-m68k.org>
> Signed-off-by: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>
> ---
> From a discussion here [1].
>
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/0f9c95f9-2c14-eee6-7faf-635880edcea4@linux-m68k.org/
> ---
>  scripts/checkpatch.pl | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index 9c4c4a61bc83..bb4e99c818a9 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -7012,6 +7012,12 @@ sub process {
>                              "Prefer strscpy, strscpy_pad, or __nonstring over strncpy - see: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/90\n" . $herecurr);
>                 }
>
> +# snprintf uses that should likely be {v}scnprintf
> +               if ($line =~ /\snprintf\s*\(\s*/) {
> +                               WARN("SNPRINTF",
> +                                    "Prefer scnprintf over snprintf\n" . $herecurr);

Whoops, I dropped the \b with some poor vim skills.

v2 is up.

[v2]: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240221-snprintf-checkpatch-v2-1-9baeb59dae30@google.com

> +               }
> +
>  # ethtool_sprintf uses that should likely be ethtool_puts
>                 if ($line =~ /\bethtool_sprintf\s*\(\s*$FuncArg\s*,\s*$FuncArg\s*\)/) {
>                         if (WARN("PREFER_ETHTOOL_PUTS",
>
> ---
> base-commit: b401b621758e46812da61fa58a67c3fd8d91de0d
> change-id: 20240221-snprintf-checkpatch-a864ed67ebd0
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>
>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2024-02-21 22:13 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-02-21 22:05 [PATCH] checkpatch: add check for snprintf to scnprintf Justin Stitt
2024-02-21 22:13 ` Justin Stitt

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®