On 8/14/19, 10:25 AM, "[email protected] on behalf of Bart Van
Assche" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]>
wrote:
On 7/24/19 10:46 PM, Wang Xiayang wrote:
> As commit a86028f8e3ee ("staging: most: sound: replace snprintf
> with strscpy") suggested, using snprintf without a format specifier
> is potentially risky if a0->vendor_name or a0->vendor_pn mistakenly
> contain format specifiers. In addition, as compared in the
> implementation, strscpy looks more light-weight than snprintf.
>
> This patch does not incur any functional change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wang Xiayang <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
b/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
> index 4059655639d9..068b54218ff4 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
> @@ -3461,12 +3461,12 @@ static void qla2xxx_print_sfp_info(struct
scsi_qla_host *vha)
> int leftover, len;
>
> memset(str, 0, STR_LEN);
> - snprintf(str, SFF_VEN_NAME_LEN+1, a0->vendor_name);
> + strscpy(str, a0->vendor_name, SFF_VEN_NAME_LEN+1);
> ql_dbg(ql_dbg_init, vha, 0x015a,
> "SFP MFG Name: %s\n", str);
>
> memset(str, 0, STR_LEN);
> - snprintf(str, SFF_PART_NAME_LEN+1, a0->vendor_pn);
> + strscpy(str, a0->vendor_pn, SFF_PART_NAME_LEN+1);
> ql_dbg(ql_dbg_init, vha, 0x015c,
> "SFP Part Name: %s\n", str);
From qla_def.h:
/* Refer to SNIA SFF 8247 */
struct sff_8247_a0 {
[ ... ]
u8 vendor_name[SFF_VEN_NAME_LEN]; /* offset 20/14h */
u8 vendor_pn[SFF_PART_NAME_LEN]; /* part number */
So I think that using SFF_PART_NAME_LEN+1 as length limit is wrong.
Himanshu, do you perhaps know whether or not the vendor_name and
vendor_pn arrays should be '\0'-terminated in struct sff_8247_a0?
Hi Bart,
Since the data is coming from firmware itself so it's not \0 terminated. So yes
the array should be terminated with \0.
Thanks,
Himanshu
Thanks,
Bart.
