On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 2:58 PM Florian Westphal <fw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Justin Stitt <justinstitt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 1:19 PM Florian Westphal <fw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Justin Stitt <justinstitt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Use `strscpy_pad` instead of `strncpy`. > > > > > > I don't think that any of these need zero-padding. > > It's a more consistent change with the rest of the series and I don't > > believe it has much different behavior to `strncpy` (other than > > NUL-termination) as that will continue to pad to `n` as well. > > > > Do you think the `_pad` for 1/7, 6/7 and 7/7 should be changed back to > > `strscpy` in a v3? I really am shooting in the dark as it is quite > > hard to tell whether or not a buffer is expected to be NUL-padded or > > not. > > No, you can keep it as-is. Which tree are you targetting with this? Not sure, I let ./getmaintainer auto-add the mailing lists. Perhaps netdev or netfilter next trees?
