linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH] video: fbdev: au1200fb: replace deprecated strncpy with strscpy

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]

Message-ID: <202403191944.B66E4853@keescook>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 19:44:06 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>
Cc: Helge Deller <deller@....de>, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] video: fbdev: au1200fb: replace deprecated strncpy with
 strscpy

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:46:33PM +0000, Justin Stitt wrote:
> strncpy() is deprecated for use on NUL-terminated destination strings
> [1] and as such we should prefer more robust and less ambiguous string
> interfaces.
> 
> Let's use the new 2-argument strscpy() which guarantees NUL-termination
> on the destination buffer while also simplifying the syntax. Note that
> strscpy() will not NUL-pad the destination buffer like strncpy() does.
> 
> However, the NUL-padding behavior of strncpy() is not required since
> fbdev is already NUL-allocated from au1200fb_drv_probe() ->
> frameuffer_alloc(), rendering any additional NUL-padding redundant.
> |	p = kzalloc(fb_info_size + size, GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> Link: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/deprecated.html#strncpy-on-nul-terminated-strings [1]
> Link: https://manpages.debian.org/testing/linux-manual-4.8/strscpy.9.en.html [2]
> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/90
> Cc: linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>

Yup, looks correct.

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>

-- 
Kees Cook