[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150519192206.GN4641@pd.tnic>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 21:22:06 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, cpuinfo x86_model_id whitespace cleanup
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:44:41AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On May 19, 2015 11:13 AM, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 01:25:59PM -0400, Brian Gerst wrote:
> > > Using strlcpy in this manner could fail if it does larger than byte
> > > copies and they overlap.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > AFAICT, strlcpy() calls memcpy() and memcpy should handle overlapping
> > buffers just fine.
>
> Are you thinking of memmove?
I guess I'm trying to find out why don't we have a BIG FAT WARNING over
memcpy saying not to use it with overlapping buffers and larger than
byte sizes. Or maybe this is something everyone, except me, just knows
and that's a "Doh, Boris, of course!".
Btw, can we still avoid using the temporary buffer and use strncpy()
instead? AFAICT, that does byte copies, from looking at the asm.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists