Re: [PATCH v4] EDAC/mc: Prefer strscpy over strcpy
From: Len Baker <hidden>
Date: 2021-08-29 16:15:23
Also in:
linux-hardening, lkml
Hi, On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 07:54:07PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 07:36:33PM +0200, Len Baker wrote:quoted
Well, the main purpose is to clean up the proliferation of str*cpy functions. One task is to remove the strcpy uses: The first step (previous step) would be to remove all the strcpy uses. Then, as a second step remove all the strcpy implementations. I hope that this clarify your question.Yes, it does. Now lemme clarify why I'm asking: when your patch is committed to the kernel tree and someone reads its commit message months or even years from now - and those who do that are mostly maintainers trying to figure out why stuff was done the way it was - they will read: "This is a previous step in the path to remove the strcpy() function entirely from the kernel." and wonder what previous step that is what the following step is... So, long story short, your commit message should be complete on its own and understandable without any references to things which might not be as clear and self-evident in the future as they are now. Makes sense?
Ok, understood. Thanks for the advise and guidance.
Also, if you're wondering if you should send the patch with the error checking of strscpy() added, as I requested, even if it might look superfluous now, yes you should. Even if it looks impossible now, we might change some of those defines in the future and forget to touch the logic which generates e->label and we might end up exhausting that string. So it would be a lot more robust if something would catch that change, albeit seemingly redundant now. I sincerely hope that clears up things.
Yes, it clears up things. However I think the same that Joe: From Joe Perches: [...] I still think scnprintf is _way_ more common and intelligible as a construct than this odd strscpy with required error checking. [...] So, I will send a new version for review with the commit message updated and using the scnprintf. This way we can discuss using a real patch. Anyway thanks for the review. Regards, Len