[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160421151343.GA3763@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 11:13:44 -0400
From: Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@...hat.com>,
Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Jason Andryuk <jandryuk@...il.com>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...eos.com>, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib: Always NUL terminate ucs2_as_utf8
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 01:18:27PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> ( Good Lord, I hate doing string manipulation in C )
(yep)
>
> On Wed, 20 Apr, at 03:25:32PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> >
> > So, "len" does not include the room for the terminating NUL-byte here.
> > When "len" is passed to ucs2_as_utf8(), with the proposed patch applied,
> > a NUL byte will be produced in "name", but it will be at the price of a
> > genuine character from the input variable name.
>
> Right, and this is a problem because we're trying to keep the names
> consistent between efivarfs and the EFI variable data. Force
> NUL-terminating the string is wrong, because if you have no room for
> the NUL the caller should check for that. Sadly none do.
>
> On the flip-side, passing around non-NUL terminated strings is just
> begging for these kinds of issues to come up.
>
> The fact is that the callers of ucs2_as_utf8() are passing it the
> wrong 'len' argument. We want a NUL-terminated utf8 string and we're
> passing a NUL-terminated ucs2 string. We should tell ucs2_as_utf8() it
> has enough room to copy the NUL.
>
> Wouldn't this work (minus the return value checking)?
I agree with your analysis, and your patch looks plausible.
--
Peter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists