[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7baab878-ab15-4e8f-a1bd-6c028a6dbf2d@kadam.mountain>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 08:50:58 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Calvince Otieno <calvncce@...il.com>
Cc: gustavo@...eddedor.com, outreachy@...ts.linux.dev,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Martyn Welch <martyn@...chs.me.uk>,
Manohar Vanga <manohar.vanga@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] staging: vme_user: replace strcpy with strscpy
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 08:47:24AM +0300, Calvince Otieno wrote:
> Checkpatch suggests using strscpy() instead of strcpy().
>
> The advantages of strscpy() are that it always adds a NUL terminator
> and prevents read/write overflows if the source string is not properly
> terminated.
>
> strcpy() lacks built-in bounds checking for the destination buffer,
> making it susceptible to buffer overflows. These overflows can lead
> to various unpredictable behaviors.
>
> In this specific context, both strscpy and strcpy performs the same
> operation without any functional difference.
>
> The reason for this equivalence is that the driver_name string "vme_fake"
> is shorter than the size of the fake_bridge->name array which is defined
> as 16 characters (struct vme_bridge {char name[VMENAMSIZ];...}). Thus,
> there is no risk of buffer overflow in either case. VMENAMSIZ variable
> holds a constant value of 16 (#define VMENAMSIZ 16)
>
> The null-terminated "vme_fake" string
> (static const char driver_name[] = "vme_fake";) can be safely copied into
> fake_bridge->name using either strscpy or strcpy.
>
> While using strscpy() does not address any bugs, it is considered a better
> practice and aligns with checkpatch recommendations.
>
> Signed-off-by: Calvince Otieno <calvncce@...il.com>
> ---
Thanks!
Reviewed-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists