[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <q49499n7-54p3-1soo-8s83-7p84724o08p7@vanv.qr>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 23:54:48 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...i.de>
To: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>
cc: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, 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 Wednesday 2023-08-09 23:40, Justin Stitt wrote:
>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.
I don't recall either NF userspace or kernelspace code doing memcmp
with name-like fields, so padding should not be strictly needed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists