[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202010231041.9FAB4A2714@keescook>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 10:41:53 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
Francis Laniel <laniel_francis@...vacyrequired.com>,
"linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 3/3] Rename nla_strlcpy to nla_strscpy.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 08:29:20AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 08:07:44 +0000 David Laight wrote:
> > FWIW I suspect the 'return -ERR on overflow' is going to bite us.
> > Code that does p += strsxxx(p, ..., lim - p, ...) assuming (or not
> > caring) about overflow goes badly wrong.
>
> I don't really care either way, but in netlink there's usually an
> attribute per value, nothing combines strings like p += strx..().
> Looking at the conversion in patch 2 the callers just want to
> check for overflow.
Right -- this is a very narrow use-case (NLA). I think this series is
fine as-is.
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists