From: Al Viro > > I think the problem with wmnet is not that it was expecting the fields > > to be aligned because it never had problems before (when definitely more > > than 10 megabytes were received, wmnet is crappy but not _that_ crappy). > > > > I think the problem really was here, > > > > totalbytes_in = strtoul(&buffer[7], NULL, 10); > > > > After the patch the device name is 8 characters long and &buffer[7] > > overlaps with the name instead of reading the bytes. Before the > > patch is was fine because the call to strtoul() seems correct in the > > sense that it would read everything until the NULL. So more than 10 > > megabytes was still ok. > > > > So I guess I was wrong when suggesting that the problem was the > > alignment. > > Several lines below there's this: > totalpackets_out = strtoul(&buffer[74], NULL, 10); > if (totalpackets_out != lastpackets_out) { > totalbytes_out = strtoul(&buffer[66], NULL, > 10); > diffpackets_out += totalpackets_out - > lastpackets_out; > diffbytes_out += totalbytes_out - > lastbytes_out; > lastpackets_out = totalpackets_out; > lastbytes_out = totalbytes_out; > tx = True; > } > > So I'm afraid it *is* that crappy. This function really should use scanf(); > note that updateStats_ipchains() in the same file does just that (well, > fgets()+sscanf() for fsck knows what reason). And I'd be careful with all > those %d, actually - it's not _that_ hard to get more than 4Gb sent. > scanf formats really ought to match the kernel-side (seq_)printf one...
IMHO it is safer to use strchr(p, ' '); to skip the interface name and then use repeated calls to strtoull() to read the numbers. Correctly/safely using scanf() is really too hard. David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/