From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id E1D0B3864842; Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:01:04 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E1D0B3864842
From: "siddhesh at sourceware dot org" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug stdio/28989] __snprintf_chk bounds check is too strict
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:01:04 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc
X-Bugzilla-Component: stdio
X-Bugzilla-Version: 2.35
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: siddhesh at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-28989-131-McNm3gtJi0@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-28989-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-28989-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Glibc-bugs mailing list <glibc-bugs.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/glibc-bugs>,
 <mailto:glibc-bugs-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/glibc-bugs/>
List-Help: <mailto:glibc-bugs-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/glibc-bugs>,
 <mailto:glibc-bugs-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:01:05 -0000

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D28989

--- Comment #5 from Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at sourceware dot org> ---
(In reply to dj@redhat.com from comment #4)
> *** possible buffer overflow detected - length exceeds buffer ***

Strictly speaking, I agree that the message is misleading, but I'm not sure=
 if
changing it is worthwhile.  If we agree to change it then we should probabl=
y do
the same for strncpy, wcsncpy, vsnprintf, etc. too since they all use the s=
ame
check to fail on overflow.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=