Am 27.06.2017 05:31, schrieb Baruch Siach: > Hi Matthew, > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 08:45:42PM -0500, Matthew Weber wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Emmanuel Deloget <log...@free.fr> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Matthew Weber >>> <matthew.we...@rockwellcollins.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Baruch Siach <bar...@tkos.co.il> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 03:33:09PM -0500, Matt Weber wrote: >>>>>> From: Jared Bents <jared.be...@rockwellcollins.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> Update to increase the pathname limit to the >>>>>> linux limit of 4096 characters. >>>>>> >>>>>> Similar patch: >>>>>> https://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/131475/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jared Bents <jared.be...@rockwellcollins.com> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Matt Weber <matthew.we...@rockwellcollins.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> miscutils/makedevs.c | 4 ++-- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/miscutils/makedevs.c b/miscutils/makedevs.c >>>>>> index 9e7ca34..0049edb 100644 >>>>>> --- a/miscutils/makedevs.c >>>>>> +++ b/miscutils/makedevs.c >>>>>> @@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ int makedevs_main(int argc UNUSED_PARAM, char >>>>>> **argv) >>>>>> unsigned count = 0; >>>>>> unsigned increment = 0; >>>>>> unsigned start = 0; >>>>>> - char name[41]; >>>>>> + char name[4096]; >>>>> >>>>> Why not use PATH_MAX here? >>>> >>>> Agree, that would be cleaner. Will submit v2 after some testing. >>>> >>>> That still leaves a hardcoded value in the sscanf of 4095........ >>>> should I add a comment to the affect we're assuming PATH_MAX is at >>>> least 4096? Maybe a check is also needed? >>> >>> >>> Alternatively you may use the m modifier, when implemented, to auto-allocate >>> the name pointer. This way you don't have to hardcode anything in the >>> sscanf(), you let the library for the job for you. Later, you can check the >>> string length. >>> >>> Such a change would induce an allocation, a free but will also reduce stack >>> usage. >>> >> >> If we want to keep it all static, another option would be to stringify >> that define. >> (Courtesy Jared for this idea) >> >> + #define STRINGIFY(x) STRINGIFY2(x) >> + #define STRINGIFY2(x) #x >> ..... >> - if ((2 > sscanf(line, "%40s %c %o %40s %40s %u %u %u %u %u", >> + if ((2 > sscanf(line, "%" STRINGIFY(PATH_MAX) "s %c %o %40s %40s %u >> %u %u %u %u", > > You need 'STRINGIFY(PATH_MAX-1)'. I'm not sure this does what you mean. >
May i ask "what is the problem (beyond truncation) what we want to solve" ? It there a need for "unlimited" length ? Independed of that it would be possible the use the %m modifier for scanf. (and break older verions of glibc). see: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/38685724/difference-between-ms-and-s-scanf re, wh _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
