[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151005115355.GA27073@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 13:53:55 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] string: Improve the generic strlcpy() implementation
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> 2)
>
> Another problem is that strlcpy() will also happily do bad stuff if we pass
> it a negative size. Instead of that we will from now on print a (one time)
> warning and return safely.
Hm, so this check is buggy, as 'size_t' is unsigned - and for some reason GCC
didn't warn about the never-met comparison and the resulting unreachable dead
code here:
> + /* Overflow check: */
> + if (unlikely(dest_size < 0)) {
> + WARN_ONCE(1, "strlcpy(): dest_size < 0 underflow!");
> + return strlen(src);
> + }
which is annoying.
Would people object to something like:
> + /* Overflow check: */
> + if (unlikely((ssize_t)dest_size < 0)) {
> + WARN_ONCE(1, "strlcpy(): dest_size < 0 underflow!");
> + return strlen(src);
> + }
?
As I doubt it's legit to have larger than 2GB strings.
Also, I'm wondering why GCC didn't warn.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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