On Fri, 2022-12-23 at 10:52 +0800, yang.yang29@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Xu Panda <xu.panda@xxxxxxxxxx> > > The implementation of strscpy() is more robust and safer. > That's now the recommended way to copy NUL-terminated strings. > > Signed-off-by: Xu Panda <xu.panda@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Yang Yang <yang.yang29@xxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/net/wireless/cisco/airo.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/cisco/airo.c b/drivers/net/wireless/cisco/airo.c > index 7c4cc5f5e1eb..600a64f671ce 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/cisco/airo.c > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/cisco/airo.c > @@ -6067,8 +6067,7 @@ static int airo_get_nick(struct net_device *dev, > struct airo_info *local = dev->ml_priv; > > readConfigRid(local, 1); > - strncpy(extra, local->config.nodeName, 16); > - extra[16] = '\0'; > + strscpy(extra, local->config.nodeName, 17); > dwrq->length = strlen(extra); > Again, why bother. But is this even correct/identical behaviour? Wouldn't it potentially read 17 input bytes before forcing NUL- termination? johannes
