The sysfs_ops's show vector doesn't have a size of the
buffer given to the vector, while store on the other hand
has. What is the rationale behind it?
I see most of the implementations doing strcpy in the
show vectors. Ill behaved driver might overwrite the
given buffer when size is not known. Should this be addressed
by providing the buffer size along with the buffer pointer?
Thanks
Best Regards
Himanshu
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majo...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
If you need to check the size, you are doing something wrong.
Seriously, that is the reason. A sysfs file should be a single value,
which will never overflow the buffer.
> I see most of the implementations doing strcpy in the
> show vectors. Ill behaved driver might overwrite the
> given buffer when size is not known. Should this be addressed
> by providing the buffer size along with the buffer pointer?
Nope.
Again, a single value only, it easily fits into the buffer size.
thanks,
greg k-h
BTW, Greg, Did you take a look at other patches I had sent? Are are worth or
I need rework?
Regards
Himanshu
Then it needs to be fixed. Again, it must be, one value per file, that
is the sysfs rule.
> Which seems to over flow the buffer. But anyways, I will check if it
> can be reduced or at least be splitted into differnt device
> attributes.
That would be great.
> BTW, Greg, Did you take a look at other patches I had sent? Are are worth or
> I need rework?
They are in my "to-apply" queue that I will be flushing out in the next
few days.
thanks,
greg k-h
Okay, I will do that.
>
> > BTW, Greg, Did you take a look at other patches I had sent? Are are worth or
> > I need rework?
>
> They are in my "to-apply" queue that I will be flushing out in the next
> few days.
Thanks Greg.
Regards
Himanshu