linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] string: Add stracpy and stracpy

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1907250847440.2555@hadrien>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jul 2019 08:48:30 -0500 (CDT)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
cc:     cocci@...teme.lip6.fr, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] string: Add stracpy and stracpy_pad mechanisms



On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:

> > @r@
> > identifier f,i1,i2;
> > struct i1 e1;
> > expression e2;
> > position p;
> > @@
> > \(strscpy\|strlcpy\)(e1.f, e2, i2)@p
>
> I have got the impression that the replacement can work also
> without an inherited position variable at the end.
> How do you think about to omit this SmPL rule then?
>
> Can it be nicer to reduce duplicate SmPL code a bit?

Huh?  Rule 2 is important, to ensure that ths size is correct.  Without
rule 1, how can rule 2 be checked?

julia