[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFhGd8oNsGEAmSYs4H3ppm1t2DrD8Br5wwg+VuNtwfoOA_-64A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 14:40:39 -0700
From: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>
To: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>, Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...filter.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
coreteam@...filter.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] netfilter: ipset: refactor deprecated strncpy
On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 1:19 PM Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de> wrote:
>
> Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com> wrote:
> > Use `strscpy_pad` instead of `strncpy`.
>
> I don't think that any of these need zero-padding.
It's a more consistent change with the rest of the series and I don't
believe it has much different behavior to `strncpy` (other than
NUL-termination) as that will continue to pad to `n` as well.
Do you think the `_pad` for 1/7, 6/7 and 7/7 should be changed back to
`strscpy` in a v3? I really am shooting in the dark as it is quite
hard to tell whether or not a buffer is expected to be NUL-padded or
not.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists