[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZPiH/ds9oeimXDdb@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 16:09:01 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
Steve Wahl <steve.wahl@....com>,
Mike Travis <mike.travis@....com>,
Dimitri Sivanich <dimitri.sivanich@....com>,
Russ Anderson <russ.anderson@....com>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86/platform/uv: refactor deprecated strcpy and
strncpy
* Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com> wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> On 9/6/23 14:10, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Both `strncpy` and `strcpy` are deprecated for use on NUL-terminated
> >> destination strings [1].
> >>
> >> We can see that `arg` and `uv_nmi_action` are expected to be
> >> NUL-terminated strings due to their use within `strcmp()` and format
> >> strings respectively.
> >>
> >> With this in mind, a suitable replacement is `strscpy` [2] due to the
> >> fact that it guarantees NUL-termination on its destination buffer
> >> argument which is _not_ the case for `strncpy` or `strcpy`!
> >>
> >> In this case, we can drop both the forced NUL-termination and the `... -1` from:
> >> | strncpy(arg, val, ACTION_LEN - 1);
> >> as `strscpy` implicitly has this behavior.
> >>
> >> Link: www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/deprecated.html#strncpy-on-nul-terminated-strings[1]
> >> Link: https://manpages.debian.org/testing/linux-manual-4.8/strscpy.9.en.html [2]
> >> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/90
> >> Cc: linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
> >> Signed-off-by: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>
> >
> >> arch/x86/platform/uv/uv_nmi.c | 7 +++----
> >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > Note that this commit is already upstream:
> >
> > 1e6f01f72855 ("x86/platform/uv: Refactor code using deprecated strcpy()/strncpy() interfaces to use strscpy()")
> >
> > Below is the delta your v3 patch has compared to what is upstream - is it
> > really necessary to open code it, instead of using strnchrnul() as your
> > original patch did? Am I missing anything here?
>
> The new version is a result of a review from my because IMHO:
>
> strscpy(arg, val, strnchrnul(val, sizeof(arg)-1, '\n') - val + 1);
>
> Is really unreadable / really hard to reason about if
> this is actually correct and does not contain any
> of by 1 bugs.
>
> Note that the diff of v3 compared to the code before v2 landed is
> actually smaller now and actually matches the subject of:
> "refactor deprecated strcpy and strncpy"
>
> Where as v2 actually touches more code / refactor things
> which fall outside of a "one change per patch" approach.
> The:
>
> p = strchr(arg, '\n');
> if (p)
> *p = '\0';
>
> was already there before v2 landed.
>
> I also suggested to do a follow up patch to change things to:
>
> strscpy(arg, val, sizeof(arg));
> p = strchrnul(arg, '\n');
> *p = '\0';
>
> Which IMHO is much more readable then what has landed
> now. But since v2 has already landed I guess the best
> thing is just to stick with what we have upstream now...
Well, how about we do a delta patch with all the changes
you suggested? I'm all for readability.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists