linux-kernel - Writing to a const pointer: is this supposed to happen?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3986-5ef09780-43-189d6180@550955>
Date:   Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:35:35 +0200
From:   "Kars Mulder" <kerneldev@...smulder.nl>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Writing to a const pointer: is this supposed to 
 happen?

In the file drivers/usb/core/quirks.c, I noticed a couple of odd things about the function "quirks_param_set", and I'd like to check whether those are ok according to the kernel programming practices. Here are the relevant lines from the function (several lines omitted):

	static int quirks_param_set(const char *val, const struct kernel_param *kp) {
		char *p, *field;
		for (i = 0, p = (char *)val; p && *p;) {
			field = strsep(&p, ":");
			if (!field)
				break;

In here a const pointer *val is cast into a non-const pointer and then written to by the function strsep, which replaces the first occurrence of the ':' token by a null-byte. Is this allowed?

On a minor side note, this function immediately checks whether the first call to strsep(&p, ":") returned a nullpointer. From what I can learn from the documentation, strsep always returns what *&p was when the strsep was called, and p is verified to be nonzero in the loop condition right before the call to strsep. Is this check actually necessary? Is it a good idea to add a return-value check anyway even if it is not necessary, as an abundance of caution?