On 08/20/2011 06:49 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> ...it's more efficient since we know the length.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/cifs/cifsencrypt.c | 4 ++--
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifsencrypt.c b/fs/cifs/cifsencrypt.c
> index e76bfeb..f11dfb6 100644
> --- a/fs/cifs/cifsencrypt.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/cifsencrypt.c
> @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ int cifs_sign_smb(struct smb_hdr *cifs_pdu, struct TCP_Server_Info *server,
> return rc;
>
> if (!server->session_estab) {
> - strncpy(cifs_pdu->Signature.SecuritySignature, "BSRSPYL", 8);
> + memcpy(cifs_pdu->Signature.SecuritySignature, "BSRSPYL", 8);
> return rc;
> }
>
> @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ int cifs_sign_smb2(struct kvec *iov, int n_vec, struct TCP_Server_Info *server,
> return rc;
>
> if (!server->session_estab) {
> - strncpy(cifs_pdu->Signature.SecuritySignature, "BSRSPYL", 8);
> + memcpy(cifs_pdu->Signature.SecuritySignature, "BSRSPYL", 8);
> return rc;
> }
>
Looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@xxxxxxx>
Any reason why some of the strncpy/strncmp cases were only picked up
among the rest? May be depending on how hot the code path is?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
