On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:00:11 +0530
Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
>
Simply because that's where I noticed them. If you see other places
that could benefit, then it's probably reasonable to patch them too.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
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
