linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v4] checkpatch: add check for snprintf to scnprintf

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 16:20:32 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>,
	Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, Finn Thain <fthain@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] checkpatch: add check for snprintf to scnprintf

On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 08:53:33PM +0000, Justin Stitt wrote:
> I am going to quote Lee Jones who has been doing some snprintf ->
> scnprintf refactorings:
> 
> "There is a general misunderstanding amongst engineers that
> {v}snprintf() returns the length of the data *actually* encoded into the
> destination array.  However, as per the C99 standard {v}snprintf()
> really returns the length of the data that *would have been* written if
> there were enough space for it.  This misunderstanding has led to
> buffer-overruns in the past.  It's generally considered safer to use the
> {v}scnprintf() variants in their place (or even sprintf() in simple
> cases).  So let's do that."
> 
> To help prevent new instances of snprintf() from popping up, let's add a
> check to checkpatch.pl.
> 
> Suggested-by: Finn Thain <fthain@...ux-m68k.org>
> Signed-off-by: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>

-- 
Kees Cook