linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v6] 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: Thu, 2 May 2024 10:30:19 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.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, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Finn Thain <fthain@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] checkpatch: add check for snprintf to scnprintf

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024, 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>
> ---
> Changes in v6:
> - move capture group to only include symbol name (not spaces or paren)
> - Link to v5: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240422-snprintf-checkpatch-v5-1-f1e90bf7164e@google.com
> 
> Changes in v5:
> - use capture groups to let the user know which variation they used
> - Link to v4: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240408-snprintf-checkpatch-v4-1-8697c96ac94b@google.com
> 
> Changes in v4:
> - also check for vsnprintf variant (thanks Bill)
> - Link to v3: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240315-snprintf-checkpatch-v3-1-a451e7664306@google.com
> 
> Changes in v3:
> - fix indentation
> - add reference link (https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/105) (thanks Joe)
> - Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240221-snprintf-checkpatch-v2-1-9baeb59dae30@google.com
> 
> Changes in v2:
> - Had a vim moment and deleted a character before sending the patch.
> - Replaced the character :)
> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240221-snprintf-checkpatch-v1-1-3ac5025b5961@google.com
> ---
> From a discussion here [1].
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/0f9c95f9-2c14-eee6-7faf-635880edcea4@linux-m68k.org/
> ---
>  scripts/checkpatch.pl | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

Reviewed-by: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]