Re: [PATCH v3] x86/platform/uv: refactor deprecated strcpy and strncpy

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



On 9/6/23 16:09, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Ingo,
>> On 9/6/23 14:10, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> * Justin Stitt <justinstitt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Both `strncpy` and `strcpy` are deprecated for use on NUL-terminated
>>>> destination strings [1].
>>>> We can see that `arg` and `uv_nmi_action` are expected to be
>>>> NUL-terminated strings due to their use within `strcmp()` and format
>>>> strings respectively.
>>>> With this in mind, a suitable replacement is `strscpy` [2] due to the
>>>> fact that it guarantees NUL-termination on its destination buffer
>>>> argument which is _not_ the case for `strncpy` or `strcpy`!
>>>> In this case, we can drop both the forced NUL-termination and the `... -1` from:
>>>> |       strncpy(arg, val, ACTION_LEN - 1);
>>>> as `strscpy` implicitly has this behavior.
>>>> Link:[1]
>>>> Link: [2]
>>>> Link:
>>>> Cc: linux-hardening@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Signed-off-by: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>  arch/x86/platform/uv/uv_nmi.c | 7 +++----
>>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>> Note that this commit is already upstream:
>>>   1e6f01f72855 ("x86/platform/uv: Refactor code using deprecated strcpy()/strncpy() interfaces to use strscpy()")
>>> Below is the delta your v3 patch has compared to what is upstream - is it 
>>> really necessary to open code it, instead of using strnchrnul() as your 
>>> original patch did? Am I missing anything here?
>> The new version is a result of a review from my because IMHO:
>> 	strscpy(arg, val, strnchrnul(val, sizeof(arg)-1, '\n') - val + 1);
>> Is really unreadable / really hard to reason about if
>> this is actually correct and does not contain any
>> of by 1 bugs.
>> Note that the diff of v3 compared to the code before v2 landed is
>> actually smaller now and actually matches the subject of:
>> "refactor deprecated strcpy and strncpy"
>> Where as v2 actually touches more code / refactor things
>> which fall outside of a "one change per patch" approach.
>> The:
>> 	p = strchr(arg, '\n');
>> 	if (p)
>> 		*p = '\0';
>> was already there before v2 landed.
>> I also suggested to do a follow up patch to change things to:
>> 	strscpy(arg, val, sizeof(arg));
>> 	p = strchrnul(arg, '\n');
>> 	*p = '\0';
>> Which IMHO is much more readable then what has landed
>> now. But since v2 has already landed I guess the best
>> thing is just to stick with what we have upstream now...
> Well, how about we do a delta patch with all the changes
> you suggested? I'm all for readability.

So I started doing this and notices that all the string
manipulation + parsing done here is really just a DYI
implementation of sysfs_match_string().

So I have prepared a patch to switch to sysfs_match_string(),
which completely removes the need to make a copy of the val

I'll submit the patch right after this email.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux