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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 00:50:58 +0530 From: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@...il.com> To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, andy@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, adobriyan@...il.com, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFC for a new string-copy function, using mixtures of strlcpy and strscpy Thanks Keen for your time. > > For the specific fs/kerfs/dir.c case, I don't see any problems -- > nothing uses the result (cgroup_name() is the only caller of > kernfs_name() that I see). > I am not worried about this single case as per say. My intention is to make the lives easier for clients in general, who have the simple motive : to copy as many bytes as possible, and then consume/propogate the return-value containing number of bytes *actually* copied, without having to resort to the identical 4-lines-per-check-fix everywhere. I think you and me agree on the pain-points of using strlcpy/strscpy. The general consensus is that no new string-functions should be added as of now, so I guess every client would require 4-lines-per-check-fix as of now (wherever applicable of course). Maybe, the RFC for new function could be discussed in the next opportune moment, which would then be a simple drop-in replacement, resulting in 1-lines-per-check-fix (wherever applicable of course). Thanks and Regards, Ajay
Powered by blists - more mailing lists