Re: [PATCH RESEND] locking/lockdep: Replace snprintf with strscpy in seq_stats

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 01:14:27AM +0100, Thorsten Blum wrote:
> Replace snprintf("%s", ...) with the faster and more direct strscpy().
> 
> Reviewed-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@linux.dev>
> ---
>  kernel/locking/lockdep_proc.c | 5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep_proc.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep_proc.c
> index 1916db9aa46b..e458fa258d05 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep_proc.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep_proc.c
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
>  #include <linux/debug_locks.h>
>  #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
>  #include <linux/sort.h>
> +#include <linux/string.h>
>  #include <linux/uaccess.h>
>  #include <asm/div64.h>
>  
> @@ -488,9 +489,9 @@ static void seq_stats(struct seq_file *m, struct lock_stat_data *data)
>  		const char *key_name;
>  
>  		key_name = __get_key_name(ckey, str);
> -		snprintf(name, namelen, "%s", key_name);
> +		strscpy(name, key_name, namelen);
>  	} else {
> -		snprintf(name, namelen, "%s", cname);
> +		strscpy(name, cname, namelen);
>  	}
>  	rcu_read_unlock_sched();

Why though? I suppose it doesn't matter, but this hardly seems worth the
electrons is was sent with :/