On Fri, 23 Feb 2024, Justin Stitt wrote:
> @p1 is assigned to @setup_buffer and then we manually assign a NUL-byte
> at the first index. This renders the following strlen() call useless.
> Moreover, we don't need to reassign p1 to setup_buffer for any reason --
> neither do we need to manually set a NUL-byte at the end. strscpy()
> resolves all this code making it easier to read.
>
> Even considering the path where @str is falsey, the manual NUL-byte
> assignment is useless
And yet your patch would only remove one of those assignments...
> as setup_buffer is declared with static storage
> duration in the top-level scope which should NUL-initialize the whole
> buffer.
>
So, in order to review this patch, to try to avoid regressions, I would
have to check your assumption that setup_buffer cannot change after being
statically initialized. (The author of this code apparently was not
willing to make that assumption.) It seems that patch review would require
exhaustively searching for functions using the buffer, and examining the
call graphs involving those functions. Is it really worth the effort?
> Signed-off-by: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/wd33c93.c | 4 +---
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/wd33c93.c b/drivers/scsi/wd33c93.c
> index e4fafc77bd20..a44b60c9004a 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/wd33c93.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/wd33c93.c
> @@ -1721,9 +1721,7 @@ wd33c93_setup(char *str)
> p1 = setup_buffer;
> *p1 = '\0';
> if (str)
> - strncpy(p1, str, SETUP_BUFFER_SIZE - strlen(setup_buffer));
> - setup_buffer[SETUP_BUFFER_SIZE - 1] = '\0';
> - p1 = setup_buffer;
> + strscpy(p1, str, SETUP_BUFFER_SIZE);
> i = 0;
> while (*p1 && (i < MAX_SETUP_ARGS)) {
> p2 = strchr(p1, ',');
>
>
