On Fri, 5 May 2017, 7:10pm, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Bart Van Assche
> <Bart.VanAssche@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 15:42 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/qedf/qedf_main.c b/drivers/scsi/qedf/qedf_main.c
> >> index cceddd995a4b..a5c97342fd5d 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/scsi/qedf/qedf_main.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/scsi/qedf/qedf_main.c
> >> @@ -2895,7 +2895,7 @@ static int __qedf_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, int mode)
> >> slowpath_params.drv_minor = QEDF_DRIVER_MINOR_VER;
> >> slowpath_params.drv_rev = QEDF_DRIVER_REV_VER;
> >> slowpath_params.drv_eng = QEDF_DRIVER_ENG_VER;
> >> - memcpy(slowpath_params.name, "qedf", QED_DRV_VER_STR_SIZE);
> >> + strncpy(slowpath_params.name, "qedf", QED_DRV_VER_STR_SIZE);
> >> rc = qed_ops->common->slowpath_start(qedf->cdev, &slowpath_params);
> >> if (rc) {
> >> QEDF_ERR(&(qedf->dbg_ctx), "Cannot start slowpath.\n");
> >
> > Hello Kees,
> >
> > Although this patch looks fine to me, isn't strlcpy() preferred over strncpy()?
>
> strlcpy doesn't zero-pad, so I think strncpy is preferred here,
> otherwise we may risk leaving portions of the destination buffer
> filled with uninitialized data, maybe leaking kernel memory contents.
>
> -Kees
>
I'd agree with strncpy so we zero out the rest of the buffer.
Acked-by: Chad Dupuis <chad.dupuis@xxxxxxxxxx>
