On 22/07/26 21:58, Thorsten Blum wrote:
Use scnprintf() and its return value to avoid a separate strlen() call.
Signed-off-by: Thorsten Blum <[email protected]>
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/rtas_flash.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/rtas_flash.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/rtas_flash.c
index 583dc16e9d3c..aff8a67e274f 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/rtas_flash.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/rtas_flash.c
@@ -291,6 +291,7 @@ static ssize_t rtas_flash_read_num(struct file *file, char
__user *buf,
{
struct rtas_update_flash_t *const uf = &rtas_update_flash_data;
char msg[RTAS_MSG_MAXLEN];
+ size_t len;
int status;
mutex_lock(&rtas_update_flash_mutex);
@@ -298,8 +299,8 @@ static ssize_t rtas_flash_read_num(struct file *file, char
__user *buf,
mutex_unlock(&rtas_update_flash_mutex);
/* Read as number */
- sprintf(msg, "%d\n", status);
- return simple_read_from_buffer(buf, count, ppos, msg, strlen(msg));
+ len = scnprintf(msg, sizeof(msg), "%d\n", status);
+ return simple_read_from_buffer(buf, count, ppos, msg, len);
Though there is no real buffer overflow issue here, it is a good idea to
convert sprintf to scnprintf. This change helps avoid calling strlen on the
same buffer.
Changes looks good to me. Feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Sourabh Jain <[email protected]>
}
/* We could be much more efficient here. But to keep this function
