[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0c5121f7-645c-3651-cccc-2ae836d415b6@windriver.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 11:39:47 +0800
From: Wenlin Kang <wenlin.kang@...driver.com>
To: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
CC: <jason.wessel@...driver.com>, <prarit@...hat.com>,
<kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kdb: Fix bound check compiler warning
On 5/12/19 5:00 PM, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 10:56:03AM +0800, Wenlin Kang wrote:
>> On 5/8/19 4:16 PM, Daniel Thompson wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 09:52:39AM +0800, Wenlin Kang wrote:
>>>> The strncpy() function may leave the destination string buffer
>>>> unterminated, better use strlcpy() instead.
>>>>
>>>> This fixes the following warning with gcc 8.2:
>>>>
>>>> kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_io.c: In function 'kdb_getstr':
>>>> kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_io.c:449:3: warning: 'strncpy' specified bound 256 equals destination size [-Wstringop-truncation]
>>>> strncpy(kdb_prompt_str, prompt, CMD_BUFLEN);
>>>> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Wenlin Kang <wenlin.kang@...driver.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_io.c | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_io.c b/kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_io.c
>>>> index 6a4b414..7fd4513 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_io.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_io.c
>>>> @@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ static char *kdb_read(char *buffer, size_t bufsize)
>>>> char *kdb_getstr(char *buffer, size_t bufsize, const char *prompt)
>>>> {
>>>> if (prompt && kdb_prompt_str != prompt)
>>>> - strncpy(kdb_prompt_str, prompt, CMD_BUFLEN);
>>>> + strlcpy(kdb_prompt_str, prompt, CMD_BUFLEN);
>>> Shouldn't that be strscpy?
>>
>> Hi Daniel
>>
>> I thought about strscpy, but I think strlcpy is better, because it only copy
>> the real number of characters if src string less than that size.
> Sorry, I'm confused by this. What behavior does strscpy() have that you
> consider undesirable in this case?
Hi Daniel
I checked strscpy() again, and think either is fine to me, if you think
strscpy() is better, I can change it to this, and send v2, thanks for
your review.
>
> Daniel.
>
--
Thanks,
Wenlin Kang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists