linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Staging: octeon: Avoid several usecases of strcpy

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:04:38 +0200
From:   Sandro Volery <sandro@...ery.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        aaro.koskinen@....fi, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: octeon: Avoid several usecases of strcpy



> On 11 Sep 2019, at 10:52, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 08:23:59AM +0200, Sandro Volery wrote:
>> strcpy was used multiple times in strcpy to write into dev->name.
>> I replaced them with strscpy.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Sandro Volery <sandro@...ery.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c | 16 ++++++++--------
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
>> index 8889494adf1f..cf8e9a23ebf9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
>> @@ -784,7 +784,7 @@ static int cvm_oct_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>            priv->imode = CVMX_HELPER_INTERFACE_MODE_DISABLED;
>>            priv->port = CVMX_PIP_NUM_INPUT_PORTS;
>>            priv->queue = -1;
>> -            strcpy(dev->name, "pow%d");
>> +            strscpy(dev->name, "pow%d", sizeof(dev->name));
> 
> Is there a program which is generating a warning for this code?  We know
> that "pow%d" is 6 characters and static analysis tools can understand
> this code fine so we know it's safe.

Well I was confused too but checkpatch complained about 
it so I figured I'd clean it up quick