Re: [Xen-devel] Lots of new warnings with gcc-7.1.1

[Marcel Holtmann <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Linus,

> At the same time, others aren't quite as insane, and in many cases the
> warnings might be easy to just fix.
> 
> And some actually look valid, although they might still require odd input:
> 
>  net/bluetooth/smp.c: In function ‘le_max_key_size_read’:
>  net/bluetooth/smp.c:3372:29: warning: ‘snprintf’ output may be
> truncated before the last format character [-Wformat-truncation=]
>    snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "%2u\n", SMP_DEV(hdev)->max_key_size);
>                               ^~~~~~~
>  net/bluetooth/smp.c:3372:2: note: ‘snprintf’ output between 4 and 5
> bytes into a destination of size 4
> 
> yeah, "max_key_size" is unsigned char, but if it's larger than 99 it
> really does need 5 bytes for "%2u\n" with the terminating NUL
> character.
> 
> Of course, the "%2d" implies that people expect it to be < 100, but at
> the same time it doesn't sound like a bad idea to just make the buffer
> be one byte bigger. So..

the Bluetooth specification defines that the Maximum Encryption Key Size shall 
be in the range 7 to 16 octets. Which is also reflected in these defines:

#define SMP_MIN_ENC_KEY_SIZE            7
#define SMP_MAX_ENC_KEY_SIZE            16

So it is buf[4] since we know it never gets larger than 16. So even in this 
case the warning is bogus.

I have no problem in increasing it to buf[5] to shut up the compiler, but that 
is what I would be doing here. I am not fixing an actual bug.

> Anyway, it would be lovely if some of the more affected developers
> would take a look at gcc-7.1.1 warnings. Right now I get about three
> *thousand* lines of warnings from a "make allmodconfig" build, which
> makes them a bit overwhelming.
> 
> I do suspect I'll make "-Wformat-truncation" (as opposed to
> "-Wformat-overflow") be a "V=1" kind of warning.  But let's see how
> many of these we can fix, ok?

I had to use the -Wno-format-trunction in a few projects since gcc was 
completely lost. And since we were using snprintf, I saw no point in trying to 
please gcc with a larger buffer.

Regards

Marcel


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel