From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 765 invoked by alias); 26 May 2005 03:41:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 716 invoked by uid 22791); 26 May 2005 03:41:45 -0000 Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 May 2005 03:41:45 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-202-135.inter.net.il [80.230.202.135]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id BIS32927 (AUTH halo1); Thu, 26 May 2005 06:41:37 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 03:47:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Wu Zhou CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: (message from Wu Zhou on Thu, 26 May 2005 02:37:08 -0700 (PDT)) Subject: Re: about the usage of sprintf in gdb, specifically in gdb/remote.c Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00552.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 02:37:08 -0700 (PDT) > From: Wu Zhou > cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, > mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl > > BTW, what is your point on my analysis in section 3.1. I believe > it might incur an overflow. I think so too. > But I need to design a scenario to verify that. That's my point exactly: you don't need to go to such lengths. If it isn't 100% obvious that no overflow is possible, we should remove sprintf in favor of safer functions.