linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] string: Add stracpy and stracpy

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:   Thu, 25 Jul 2019 09:46:00 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        cocci@...teme.lip6.fr, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] string: Add stracpy and stracpy_pad mechanisms

> New version.  I check for non-use of the return value of strlcpy and
> address some issues that affected the matching of the case where the first
> argument involves a pointer dereference.

I suggest to take another look at corresponding implementation details
of the shown SmPL script.


> \(strscpy\|strlcpy\)(e1.f, e2, i2)@p

Can the data access operator “->” (arrow) matter also here?


> @@
> identifier r.i1,r.i2;
> type T;
> @@
> struct i1 { ... T i1[i2]; ... }

Will an additional SmPL rule name be helpful for this part?


> @@
> (
> -x = strlcpy
> +stracpy
>   (e1.f, e2
> -    , i2
>   )@p;
>   ... when != x
>
> |

I wonder about the deletion of the assignment target.
Should the setting of such a variable be usually preserved?

Regards,
Markus