linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v2] RISC-V: cpu: refactor deprecated strncpy

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 02 Aug 2023 13:59:23 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
To:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, keescook@...omium.org
CC:     justinstitt@...gle.com, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        aou@...s.berkeley.edu, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ndesaulniers@...gle.com,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] RISC-V: cpu: refactor deprecated strncpy

On August 2, 2023 1:47:14 PM PDT, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Aug 2023 13:41:52 PDT (-0700), Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Aug 2023 13:36:03 PDT (-0700), keescook@...omium.org wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 12:21:58AM +0000, Justin Stitt wrote:
>>>> `strncpy` is deprecated for use on NUL-terminated destination strings [1].
>>>>
>>>> Favor not copying strings onto stack and instead use strings directly.
>>>> This avoids hard-coding sizes and buffer lengths all together.
>>>>
>>>> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/90
>>>> Cc: linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
>>>> Suggested-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>
>>>
>>> I like it! ;)
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>>
>> Thanks, I just queue it up for fixes (might take a bit to build test,
>> I'm a bit backed up).
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>
>> Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>
>> 
>> If you wanted to take it for some hardening thing, though -- otherwise
>> it'll likely end up on my fixes later today.
>
>Sorry this is for-next as it's not a fix, I was just looking at other 
>fixes.  It's queued up aimed at for-next.

Awesome; thank you! :)


-- 
Kees Cook