[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b5fcb0cd-73f7-41dc-969e-ced84edd421a@kadam.mountain>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 12:23:25 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Michael Straube <straube.linux@...il.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, philipp.g.hortmann@...il.com,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8192e: prefer strscpy over strncpy
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 07:13:42AM +0200, Michael Straube wrote:
> On 8/10/23 07:01, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 08:02:05PM +0200, Michael Straube wrote:
> > > On 8/9/23 14:21, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Aug 05, 2023 at 09:51:14AM +0200, Michael Straube wrote:
> > > > > Replace strncpy with strscpy in two places where the destination buffer
> > > > > should be NUL-terminated. Found by checkpatch.
> > > > >
> > > > > WARNING: Prefer strscpy, strscpy_pad, or __nonstring over strncpy - see: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/90
> > > >
> > > > If a global search/replace could be done, it would have happend a long
> > > > time ago.
> > > >
> > > > How was this tested? The functions work differently, are you sure there
> > > > is no change in functionality here?
> > > >
> > >
> > > It was only compile tested. To me it looked as it does not change
> > > functionality, but looking a bit deeper at it I'm not sure anymore.
> > > So, we should leave it as is.
> >
> > So there are three main differences between strncpy() and strcpy().
> >
> > 1) The return.
> > 2) strncpy() will always write net->hidden_ssid_len bytes. If the
> > string to copy is smaller than net->hidden_ssid_len bytes it will
> > fill the rest with zeroes. This can be important for preventing
> > information leaks.
> > 3) strscpy() will always add a NUL terminator where strncpy() just
> > truncates a too long string without adding a terminator.
> >
> > We want #3. We don't care about #1. The only thing to check is #2.
> >
> > regards,
> > dan carpenter
> >
>
> Thank you Dan,
>
> so in this case we should/could replace strncpy with strscpy_pad,
> correct?
I'm pretty sure that strscpy() was correct. It requires some analysis
in how this is initialized and/or used.
Don't just automatically use strscpy_pad() to try avoid doing the
analysis. ;)
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists