In what way exactly is it vulnerable? Both ACPI_VIDEO_DEVICE_NAME and ACPI_VIDEO_CLASS are kernel symbols. On Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 7:36 PM Muhammad Qasim Abdul Majeed <qasim.majeed20@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Replacing strcpy with strscpy and memory bound the copy. > > Signed-off-by: Muhammad Qasim Abdul Majeed <qasim.majeed20@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/acpi/acpi_video.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_video.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_video.c > index 1fda30388297..6113baffd53f 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_video.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_video.c > @@ -1128,8 +1128,8 @@ static int acpi_video_bus_get_one_device(struct acpi_device *device, void *arg) > return -ENOMEM; > } > > - strcpy(acpi_device_name(device), ACPI_VIDEO_DEVICE_NAME); > - strcpy(acpi_device_class(device), ACPI_VIDEO_CLASS); > + strscpy(acpi_device_name(device), ACPI_VIDEO_DEVICE_NAME, strlen(ACPI_VIDEO_DEVICE_NAME)); > + strscpy(acpi_device_class(device), ACPI_VIDEO_CLASS, strlen(ACPI_VIDEO_CLASS)); Why is a runtime check needed here if all of the sizes in question are known at compile time? > > data->device_id = device_id; > data->video = video; > @@ -2010,8 +2010,8 @@ static int acpi_video_bus_add(struct acpi_device *device) > } > > video->device = device; > - strcpy(acpi_device_name(device), ACPI_VIDEO_BUS_NAME); > - strcpy(acpi_device_class(device), ACPI_VIDEO_CLASS); > + strscpy(acpi_device_name(device), ACPI_VIDEO_BUS_NAME, strlen(ACPI_VIDEO_BUS_NAME)); > + strscpy(acpi_device_class(device), ACPI_VIDEO_CLASS, strlen(ACPI_VIDEO_CLASS)); > device->driver_data = video; > > acpi_video_bus_find_cap(video); > --
