linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH linux-next] arm64/idreg: use strscpy() is more robust and safer

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: <20221004114818.GA23663@willie-the-truck>
Date:   Tue, 4 Oct 2022 12:48:19 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     xu.panda668@...il.com
Cc:     catalin.marinas@....com, broonie@...nel.org, maz@...nel.org,
        kristina.martsenko@....com, vladimir.murzin@....com,
        mark.rutland@....com, ardb@...nel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        cgel.zte@...il.com, Xu Panda <xu.panda@....com.cn>,
        Zeal Robot <zealci@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] arm64/idreg: use strscpy() is more robust and
 safer

On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 07:29:06AM +0000, xu.panda668@...il.com wrote:
> From: Xu Panda <xu.panda@....com.cn>
> 
> The implementation of strscpy() is more robust and safer.
> That's now the recommended way to copy NUL terminated strings.
> 
> Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@....com.cn>
> Signed-off-by: Xu Panda <xu.panda@....com.cn>
> Signed-off-by: Xu Panda <xu.panda668@...il.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kernel/idreg-override.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/idreg-override.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/idreg-override.c
> index 95133765ed29..61bbec7ef62e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/idreg-override.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/idreg-override.c
> @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ static __init void __parse_cmdline(const char *cmdline, bool parse_aliases)
>                         return;
> 
>                 len = min(len, ARRAY_SIZE(buf) - 1);
> -               strncpy(buf, cmdline, len);
> +               strscpy(buf, cmdline, len);
>                 buf[len] = 0;

Aren't we terminating the buffer explicitly here anyway?

Will