linux-hardening - Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs updates for 6.8

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:48:43 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs updates for 6.8

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 02:36:30PM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> [...]
>       bcachefs: %pg is banished

Hi!

Not a PR blocker, but this patch re-introduces users of strlcpy() which
has been otherwise removed this cycle. I'll send a patch to replace
these new uses, but process-wise, I'd like check on how bcachefs patches
are reviewed.

Normally I'd go find the original email that posted the patch and reply
there, but I couldn't find a development list where this patch was
posted. Where is this happening? (Being posted somewhere is supposed
to be a prerequisite for living in -next. E.g. quoting from the -next
inclusion boiler-plate: "* posted to the relevant mailing list,") It
looks like it was authored 5 days ago, which is cutting it awfully close
to the merge window opening:

	AuthorDate: Fri Jan 5 11:58:50 2024 -0500

Actually, it looks like you rebased onto v6.7-rc7? This is normally
strongly discouraged. The common merge base is -rc2.

It also seems it didn't get a run through scripts/checkpatch.pl, which
shows 4 warnings, 2 or which point out the strlcpy deprecation:

WARNING: Prefer strscpy over strlcpy - see: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/89
#123: FILE: fs/bcachefs/super.c:1389:
+               strlcpy(c->name, name.buf, sizeof(c->name));

WARNING: Prefer strscpy over strlcpy - see: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/89
#124: FILE: fs/bcachefs/super.c:1390:
+       strlcpy(ca->name, name.buf, sizeof(ca->name));

Please make sure you're running checkpatch.pl -- it'll make integration,
technical debt reduction, and coding style adjustments much easier. :)

Thanks!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook