linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH] bus: fsl-mc: Use strscpy() instead of strscpy

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <9DDEEADA-BD78-4F4D-97AA-DCC683B2C7D0@linux.dev>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 14:45:21 +0200
From: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@...ux.dev>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Cc: Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>,
 linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] bus: fsl-mc: Use strscpy() instead of
 strscpy_pad()

Hi Christophe,

On 29. Apr 2025, at 13:58, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Le 29/04/2025 à 13:47, Ioana Ciornei a écrit:
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 12:41:48PM +0200, Thorsten Blum wrote:
>>> Both destination buffers are already zero-initialized, making strscpy()
>>> sufficient for safely copying 'obj_type'. The additional NUL-padding
>>> performed by strscpy_pad() is unnecessary.
>>> 
>>> If the destination buffer has a fixed length, strscpy() automatically
>>> determines its size using sizeof() when the argument is omitted. This
>>> makes the explicit size arguments unnecessary.
>>> 
>>> No functional changes intended.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@...ux.dev>
>> Reviewed-by: Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>
>> Christophe, could you also pick-up this patch when you have a chance?
> 
> Sure I will take it when time comes, but again I'd expect an explanation inside the patch (below the ---) for the resend. I now have this patch twice in the list and don't know why, see https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=&submitter=&state=&q=&archive=&delegate=61610

A "resend" is meant as a "ping" and the patch is always unmodified, at
least that's my understanding of it. So there's no particular reason
other than: "Did you see my patch? Let me send it again just to be sure
you didn't miss it."

From [1]: "Don’t add “RESEND” when you are submitting a modified version
of your patch or patch series - “RESEND” only applies to resubmission of
a patch or patch series which have not been modified in any way from the
previous submission."

The patches are identical - just pick one.

Thanks,
Thorsten

[1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#don-t-get-discouraged-or-impatient