On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 10:29:51AM +0300, Calvince Otieno wrote:
> Checkpatch suggests using strscpy() instead of strncpy().
>
> The advantages of strscpy() are that it always adds a NUL terminator
> and prevents read overflows if the source string is not properly
> terminated. One potential disadvantage is that it doesn't zero pad the
> string like strncpy() does.
>
> In this code, strscpy() and strncpy() are equivalent and do not affect
> runtime behavior. strscpy() simply copies the known string value of the
> variable driver_name into the fake_bridge->name variable, which also
> has a fixed size.
>
> While using strscpy() does not address any bugs, it is considered a better
> practice and aligns with checkpatch recommendations.
>
> Signed-off-by: Calvince Otieno <calvncce@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_fake.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_fake.c b/drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_fake.c
> index 0e02c194298d..09b05861017a 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_fake.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_fake.c
> @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ struct fake_driver {
> unsigned long long lm_base;
> u32 lm_aspace;
> u32 lm_cycle;
> +
> void (*lm_callback[4])(void *);
> void *lm_data[4];
Why did you make this extra line change?
> struct tasklet_struct int_tasklet;
> @@ -1091,7 +1092,7 @@ static int __init fake_init(void)
> tasklet_init(&fake_device->int_tasklet, fake_VIRQ_tasklet,
> (unsigned long)fake_bridge);
>
> - strcpy(fake_bridge->name, driver_name);
> + strscpy(fake_bridge->name, driver_name, sizeof(fake_bridge->name))
Are you sure this change is identical? You need to document how you
have proved that.
thanks,
greg k-h
