[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171206174934.e5s6c5dh5lscwkyp@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 18:49:34 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Aleksa Sarai <asarai@...e.de>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] exec: avoid gcc-8 warning for get_task_comm
* Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> gcc-8 warns about using strncpy() with the source size as the limit:
>
> fs/exec.c:1223:32: error: argument to 'sizeof' in 'strncpy' call is the same expression as the source; did you mean to use the size of the destination? [-Werror=sizeof-pointer-memaccess]
>
> This is indeed slightly suspicious, as it protects us from source
> arguments without NUL-termination, but does not guarantee that the
> destination is terminated.
>
> This keeps the strncpy() to ensure we have properly padded target buffer,
> but ensures that we use the correct length, by passing the actual length
> of the destination buffer as well as adding a build-time check to ensure
> it is exactly TASK_COMM_LEN. There are only 23 callsights which I all
> reviewed to ensure this is currently the case. We could get away with
> doing only the check or passing the right length, but it doesn't hurt
> to do both.
>
> Suggested-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Looks useful.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists