On 2/9/22 4:56 PM, Kinga Tanska wrote:
Device name wasn't filled properly due to incorrect use of strcpy.
Could you point out the specific location for improper strcpy?
Instead pointer, devname with fixed size is used and safer string
functions are propagated.
Signed-off-by: Kinga Tanska <kinga.tanska@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Monitor.c | 30 +++++++++++-------------------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Monitor.c b/Monitor.c
index 30c031a2..d02344ec 100644
--- a/Monitor.c
+++ b/Monitor.c
@@ -34,8 +34,8 @@
#endif
struct state {
- char *devname;
- char devnm[32]; /* to sync with mdstat info */
+ char devname[MD_NAME_MAX + 8];
+ char devnm[MD_NAME_MAX]; /* to sync with mdstat info */
unsigned int utime;
int err;
char *spare_group;
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ struct state {
int devstate[MAX_DISKS];
dev_t devid[MAX_DISKS];
int percent;
- char parent_devnm[32]; /* For subarray, devnm of parent.
+ char parent_devnm[MD_NAME_MAX]; /* For subarray, devnm of parent.
* For others, ""
*/
struct supertype *metadata;
@@ -184,13 +184,7 @@ int Monitor(struct mddev_dev *devlist,
if (strcasecmp(mdlist->devname, "<ignore>") == 0)
continue;
st = xcalloc(1, sizeof *st);
- if (mdlist->devname[0] == '/')
- st->devname = xstrdup(mdlist->devname);
- else {
- st->devname = xmalloc(8+strlen(mdlist->devname)+1);
- strcpy(strcpy(st->devname, "/dev/md/"),
- mdlist->devname);
- }
+ snprintf(st->devname, MD_NAME_MAX + 8, "/dev/md/%s", basename(mdlist->devname));
I feel the above change is incorrect, the tailing '\0' of the string
might be cut by your change.
st->next = statelist;
st->devnm[0] = 0;
st->percent = RESYNC_UNKNOWN;
@@ -206,7 +200,7 @@ int Monitor(struct mddev_dev *devlist,
for (dv = devlist; dv; dv = dv->next) {
struct state *st = xcalloc(1, sizeof *st);
mdlist = conf_get_ident(dv->devname);
- st->devname = xstrdup(dv->devname);
+ snprintf(st->devname, MD_NAME_MAX + 8, "%s", dv->devname);
st->next = statelist;
st->devnm[0] = 0;
st->percent = RESYNC_UNKNOWN;
@@ -289,7 +283,6 @@ int Monitor(struct mddev_dev *devlist,
for (stp = &statelist; (st = *stp) != NULL; ) {
if (st->from_auto && st->err > 5) {
*stp = st->next;
- free(st->devname);
free(st->spare_group);
free(st);
} else
@@ -540,7 +533,7 @@ static int check_array(struct state *st, struct mdstat_ent *mdstat,
goto disappeared;
if (st->devnm[0] == 0)
- strcpy(st->devnm, fd2devnm(fd));
+ snprintf(st->devnm, MD_NAME_MAX, "%s", fd2devnm(fd));
for (mse2 = mdstat; mse2; mse2 = mse2->next)
if (strcmp(mse2->devnm, st->devnm) == 0) {
@@ -670,7 +663,7 @@ static int check_array(struct state *st, struct mdstat_ent *mdstat,
strncmp(mse->metadata_version, "external:", 9) == 0 &&
is_subarray(mse->metadata_version+9)) {
char *sl;
- strcpy(st->parent_devnm, mse->metadata_version + 10);
+ snprintf(st->parent_devnm, MD_NAME_MAX, "%s", mse->metadata_version + 10);
sl = strchr(st->parent_devnm, '/');
if (sl)
*sl = 0;
@@ -758,14 +751,13 @@ static int add_new_arrays(struct mdstat_ent *mdstat, struct state **statelist,
continue;
}
- st->devname = xstrdup(name);
+ snprintf(st->devname, MD_NAME_MAX + 8, "%s", name);
if ((fd = open(st->devname, O_RDONLY)) < 0 ||
md_get_array_info(fd, &array) < 0) {
/* no such array */
if (fd >= 0)
close(fd);
put_md_name(st->devname);
- free(st->devname);
if (st->metadata) {
st->metadata->ss->free_super(st->metadata);
free(st->metadata);
@@ -777,7 +769,7 @@ static int add_new_arrays(struct mdstat_ent *mdstat, struct state **statelist,
st->next = *statelist;
st->err = 1;
st->from_auto = 1;
- strcpy(st->devnm, mse->devnm);
+ snprintf(st->devnm, MD_NAME_MAX, "%s", mse->devnm);
st->percent = RESYNC_UNKNOWN;
st->expected_spares = -1;
if (mse->metadata_version &&
@@ -785,8 +777,8 @@ static int add_new_arrays(struct mdstat_ent *mdstat, struct state **statelist,
"external:", 9) == 0 &&
is_subarray(mse->metadata_version+9)) {
char *sl;
- strcpy(st->parent_devnm,
- mse->metadata_version+10);
+ snprintf(st->parent_devnm, MD_NAME_MAX,
+ "%s", mse->metadata_version + 10);
sl = strchr(st->parent_devnm, '/');
*sl = 0;
} else
With your change, the tailing '\0' for dev name might be cut. Could you
please check whether it may introduce potential memleak ?
Thanks.
Coly Li