On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 11:53:00AM +0300, Calvince Otieno wrote:
> Checkpatch suggests using strscpy() instead of strcpy().
>
> The advantages of strscpy() are that it always adds a NUL terminator
> and prevents read overflows if the source string is not properly
> terminated.
strcpy() also always adds a NUL terminator.
With strcpy() both read overflows and write overflows are an issue but
write overflows are sooooooo much more serious that we don't worry about
read overflow.
> One potential disadvantage is that it doesn't zero pad the
> string like strcpy() does.
strcpy() does not zero pad anything. You're resending patches too
quickly. You should wait a day between resends.
>
> In this specific context, both strscpy and strcpy performs the same
> operation without any functional difference.
>
> The reason for this equivalence is that the driver_name string "vme_fake"
> is shorter than the size of the fake_bridge->name array which is defined
> as 16 characters (struct vme_bridge {char name[VMENAMSIZ];...}). Thus,
> there is no risk of buffer overflow in either case. VMENAMSIZ variable
> holds a constant value of 16 (#define VMENAMSIZ 16)
This paragraph is good and sufficient.
>
> The null-terminated "vme_fake" string
> (static const char driver_name[] = "vme_fake";) can be safely copied into
> fake_bridge->name using either strscpy or strcpy.
>
> 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>
Okay. Good. Re-write the commit message and resend it tomorrow.
regards,
dan carpenter
