lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] fix calls to request_module()
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:03:37 -0800 Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com> wrote:

> The kernel has such code eg in init/main.c, which does
>
> printk(linux_banner);
>
> when linux_banner is only visible to the compiler as
>
> extern const char linux_banner[];
>
> however the trivial fix
>
> diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
> index 7e117a2..e471598 100644
> --- a/init/main.c
> +++ b/init/main.c
> @@ -568,7 +568,7 @@ asmlinkage void __init start_kernel(void)
> boot_cpu_init();
> page_address_init();
> printk(KERN_NOTICE);
> - printk(linux_banner);
> + printk("%s", linux_banner);
> setup_arch(&command_line);
> mm_init_owner(&init_mm, &init_task);
> setup_command_line(command_line);
>
> doesn't seem that appealing, since it bloats the object code for a
> non-bug -- 7 bytes for me on x86_64:
>
> add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 1/0 up/down: 7/0 (7)
> function old new delta
> start_kernel 680 687 +7
>
> given the number of such warnings I see in a typical compile, this would
> be a fairly hefty amount of bloat just to shut up gcc.

yes, that would suck. otoh, our current warning spew actually causes bugs.

I wonder if we could add a printk_stfu() which isn't declared
attribute(printf) and which simply calls printk. We might still get a
single warning at the interface point.

> On the other hand, gcc warning on such code (untrusted format string
> passed into a printf-like function) seems quite legitimate as well.

Yes, we've had actual bugs in the kernel from this, where the control
string was user-provided. root-only user, fortunately.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-12-11 06:45    [W:0.046 / U:0.640 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site