Re: [PATCH v4] EDAC/mc: Prefer strscpy over strcpy
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Date: 2021-08-24 19:05:58
Also in:
linux-hardening, lkml
On Tue, 2021-08-24 at 20:26 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:28:07PM +0200, Len Baker wrote:quoted
This is a task of the KSPP [1] and the main reason is to clean up the proliferation of str*cpy functions in the kernel.That I understood - you prominently explain where the patches stem from. What I can't parse is that formulation "previous step". What previous step do you mean?quoted
Yes, you are right. The same discussion happened in the v3 review [2] and I agree with the reasons that Robert Richter exposed. Using the strlen() implementation it is not necessary to check the return code of strcpy and we can assume a silent truncation. [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hardening/YRN+8u59lJ6MWsOL@rric.localdomain/ (local)Ok, looking at the asm, gcc is actually smart enough not to call strlen() twice on the same buffer. But then there's this in the strscpy() kernel-doc comment: "The destination buffer is always NUL terminated, unless it's zero-sized." so looking at the code, we're merrily decrementing len but nothing's checking whether len can become 0. Because if it does, strscpy() will do: if (count == 0 || WARN_ON_ONCE(count > INT_MAX)) return -E2BIG; so if p ends up pointing to something which is *not* '\0', strlen() will go off into the weeds. So I don't care if it doesn't look just as nice - it better be correct in all cases first.
It's all somehat unnecessary as it seems it's guaranteed not to overflow. $ git grep -n -w OTHER_LABEL next-20210820 next-20210820:drivers/edac/edac_mc.c:1118: strcpy(p, OTHER_LABEL); next-20210820:drivers/edac/edac_mc.c:1119: p += strlen(OTHER_LABEL); next-20210820:include/linux/edac.h:57:#define OTHER_LABEL " or " next-20210820:include/linux/edac.h:470: char label[(EDAC_MC_LABEL_LEN + 1 + sizeof(OTHER_LABEL)) * EDAC_MAX_LABELS]; Also the array size of char label is too large. First by 1 * EDAC_MAX_LABELS as sizeof(OTHER_LABEL) is 5 not 4 and second there can only be EDAC_MAX_LABELS - 1 uses of OTHER_LABEL. And I would remove the define for OTHER_LABEL and use " or " directly. Lastly, this could be easier to understand using stpcpy and/or scnprintf.