linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH linux-next] staging: ks7010: use strscpy() to instead of strncpy()

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]

Message-ID: <Y61ikBL9ulTFHP9N@kadam>
Date:   Thu, 29 Dec 2022 12:49:04 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
To:     yang.yang29@....com.cn
Cc:     gustavoars@...nel.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xu.panda@....com.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] staging: ks7010: use strscpy() to instead of
 strncpy()

On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 12:45:10PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2022 at 07:03:24PM +0800, yang.yang29@....com.cn 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.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Xu Panda <xu.panda@....com.cn>
> > Signed-off-by: Yang Yang <yang.yang29@....com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_wlan_net.c | 3 +--
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_wlan_net.c b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_wlan_net.c
> > index 044c807ca022..e03c87f0bfe7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_wlan_net.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_wlan_net.c
> > @@ -382,8 +382,7 @@ static int ks_wlan_get_nick(struct net_device *dev,
> >  		return -EPERM;
> > 
> >  	/* for SLEEP MODE */
> > -	strncpy(extra, priv->nick, 16);
> > -	extra[16] = '\0';
> > +	strscpy(extra, priv->nick, 17);
> 
> I think this code is a buffer overflow.  This is an implementation of
> SIOCGIWNICKN.

Huh...  Maybe I'm wrong.  I looked at a couple other implementations of
SIOCGIWNICKN and they all seem to assume a 17 character buffer...

Let me look deeper.  I guess for now assume I am wrong.

regards,
dan carpenter