Re: [PATCH] atm/clip: Use seq_puts() in svc_addr()
From: Andy Shevchenko <hidden>
Date: 2018-01-07 22:58:24
Also in:
kernel-janitors, lkml
On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 11:44 PM, SF Markus Elfring [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
From: Markus Elfring <redacted> Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 22:34:12 +0100 Two strings should be quickly put into a sequence by two function calls. Thus use the function "seq_puts" instead of "seq_printf". This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <redacted> --- net/atm/clip.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/net/atm/clip.c b/net/atm/clip.c index d4f6029d5109..62a852165b19 100644 --- a/net/atm/clip.c +++ b/net/atm/clip.c@@ -708,11 +708,11 @@ static void svc_addr(struct seq_file *seq, struct sockaddr_atmsvc *addr) static int e164[] = { 1, 8, 4, 6, 1, 0 }; if (*addr->sas_addr.pub) { - seq_printf(seq, "%s", addr->sas_addr.pub); + seq_puts(seq, addr->sas_addr.pub);
Which opens a lot of security concerns. Never do this again.
if (*addr->sas_addr.prv)
seq_putc(seq, '+');
} else if (!*addr->sas_addr.prv) {- seq_printf(seq, "%s", "(none)"); + seq_puts(seq, "(none)");
...while this one is okay per se, better to keep above pattern (same style over the piece of code / function).
return;
}
if (*addr->sas_addr.prv) {
--
2.15.1P.S. I'm wondering what would be first, Markus starts looking into the actual code, or most (all) of the maintainers just ban him. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko