Re: [PATCH] tools/latency-collector: fix -Wformat-security compile warns

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 21 May 2024 09:11:08 -0600
Shuah Khan  wrote:

> Any thoughts on this patch?

Sorry, this one fell through the cracks. Daniel Bristot has been
maintaining his tools and I thought this was one of his changes.

I'll take a look at it.

-- Steve

Re: [PATCH] tools/latency-collector: fix -Wformat-security compile warns

[Shuah Khan]

On 4/3/24 19:10, Shuah Khan wrote:

Fix the following -Wformat-security compile warnings adding missing
format arguments:

latency-collector.c: In function ‘show_available’:
latency-collector.c:938:17: warning: format not a string literal and
no format arguments [-Wformat-security]
   938 | warnx(no_tracer_msg);
   | ^

latency-collector.c:943:17: warning: format not a string literal and
no format arguments [-Wformat-security]
   943 | warnx(no_latency_tr_msg);
   | ^

latency-collector.c: In function ‘find_default_tracer’:
latency-collector.c:986:25: warning: format not a string literal and
no format arguments [-Wformat-security]
   986 | errx(EXIT_FAILURE, no_tracer_msg);
   |
  ^~~~
latency-collector.c: In function ‘scan_arguments’:
latency-collector.c:1881:33: warning: format not a string literal and
no format arguments [-Wformat-security]
  1881 | errx(EXIT_FAILURE, no_tracer_msg);
   | ^~~~

Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan 
---
  tools/tracing/latency/latency-collector.c | 8 
  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/tracing/latency/latency-collector.c 
b/tools/tracing/latency/latency-collector.c
index 0fd9c747d396..cf263fe9deaf 100644
--- a/tools/tracing/latency/latency-collector.c
+++ b/tools/tracing/latency/latency-collector.c
@@ -935,12 +935,12 @@ static void show_available(void)
}
  
  	if (!tracers) {

-   warnx(no_tracer_msg);
+   warnx("%s", no_tracer_msg);
return;
}
  
  	if (!found) {

-   warnx(no_latency_tr_msg);
+   warnx("%s", no_latency_tr_msg);
tracefs_list_free(tracers);
return;
}
@@ -983,7 +983,7 @@ static const char *find_default_tracer(void)
for (i = 0; relevant_tracers[i]; i++) {
valid = tracer_valid(relevant_tracers[i], );
if (notracer)
-   errx(EXIT_FAILURE, no_tracer_msg);
+   errx(EXIT_FAILURE, "%s", no_tracer_msg);
if (valid)
return relevant_tracers[i];
}
@@ -1878,7 +1878,7 @@ static void scan_arguments(int argc, char *argv[])
}
valid = tracer_valid(current_tracer, );
if (notracer)
-   errx(EXIT_FAILURE, no_tracer_msg);
+   errx(EXIT_FAILURE, "%s", no_tracer_msg);
if (!valid)
errx(EXIT_FAILURE,
  "The tracer %s is not supported by your kernel!\n", current_tracer);


Any thoughts on this patch?

thanks,
-- Shuah