Hi, On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 3:04 AM David Laight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > @@ -783,8 +783,6 @@ static int kdb_exec_defcmd(int argc, const char > > > **argv) > > > > > > /* Command history */ > > > #define KDB_CMD_HISTORY_COUNT 32 > > > -#define CMD_BUFLEN 200 /* kdb_printf: max printline > > > - * size == 256 */ > > > > Maybe Daniel will know more; otherwise, I need to spend more time > > digging. ...but the comment above (that you're deleting) makes me > > believe that 200 was purposely chosen to be a number that was under > > 256. It sounds as if maybe they're keeping some buffers at 200 so that > > there'e enough extra space to print the buffer plus some extra stuff? > > > > Maybe safer to keep the number at 200? > > I bet the prompt+command has to fit in 256 bytes? > Who wants a prompt that is more than (about) 20 characters anyway?
As I said, I'm not really sure there's value in messing with the kdb prompt to begin with, since there's no useful info you can put in it other than the CPU. ...but whatever. > FWIW there are a few other very strange strcpy() in kdbg that I'm pretty > sure can actually overwrite the end of the buffer. > (Ones that put a special marker string (IIRC "kdbg") into a buffer.) We've had several rounds of patches improving string safety. If you can show any missed cases, please send a patch. In this day and age, if there are problems, it's probably a matter of time before AI sends us patches. I presume Naveen ended up here to begin with because AI pointed out the problems that he's fixing. -Doug _______________________________________________ Kgdb-bugreport mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kgdb-bugreport
