strcpy was used multiple times in strcpy to write into dev->name.
I replaced them with strscpy.
Signed-off-by: Sandro Volery <[email protected]>
---
drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c | 16 ++++++++--------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
index 8889494adf1f..cf8e9a23ebf9 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
@@ -784,7 +784,7 @@ static int cvm_oct_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
priv->imode = CVMX_HELPER_INTERFACE_MODE_DISABLED;
priv->port = CVMX_PIP_NUM_INPUT_PORTS;
priv->queue = -1;
- strcpy(dev->name, "pow%d");
+ strscpy(dev->name, "pow%d", sizeof(dev->name));
for (qos = 0; qos < 16; qos++)
skb_queue_head_init(&priv->tx_free_list[qos]);
dev->min_mtu = VLAN_ETH_ZLEN - mtu_overhead;
@@ -856,39 +856,39 @@ static int cvm_oct_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
case CVMX_HELPER_INTERFACE_MODE_NPI:
dev->netdev_ops = &cvm_oct_npi_netdev_ops;
- strcpy(dev->name, "npi%d");
+ strscpy(dev->name, "npi%d", sizeof(dev->name));
break;
case CVMX_HELPER_INTERFACE_MODE_XAUI:
dev->netdev_ops = &cvm_oct_xaui_netdev_ops;
- strcpy(dev->name, "xaui%d");
+ strscpy(dev->name, "xaui%d", sizeof(dev->name));
break;
case CVMX_HELPER_INTERFACE_MODE_LOOP:
dev->netdev_ops = &cvm_oct_npi_netdev_ops;
- strcpy(dev->name, "loop%d");
+ strscpy(dev->name, "loop%d", sizeof(dev->name));
break;
case CVMX_HELPER_INTERFACE_MODE_SGMII:
priv->phy_mode = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_SGMII;
dev->netdev_ops = &cvm_oct_sgmii_netdev_ops;
- strcpy(dev->name, "eth%d");
+ strscpy(dev->name, "eth%d", sizeof(dev->name));
break;
case CVMX_HELPER_INTERFACE_MODE_SPI:
dev->netdev_ops = &cvm_oct_spi_netdev_ops;
- strcpy(dev->name, "spi%d");
+ strscpy(dev->name, "spi%d", sizeof(dev->name));
break;
case CVMX_HELPER_INTERFACE_MODE_GMII:
priv->phy_mode = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_GMII;
dev->netdev_ops = &cvm_oct_rgmii_netdev_ops;
- strcpy(dev->name, "eth%d");
+ strscpy(dev->name, "eth%d", sizeof(dev->name));
break;
case CVMX_HELPER_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII:
dev->netdev_ops = &cvm_oct_rgmii_netdev_ops;
- strcpy(dev->name, "eth%d");
+ strscpy(dev->name, "eth%d", sizeof(dev->name));
cvm_set_rgmii_delay(priv, interface,
port_index);
break;
--
2.23.0
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 08:23:59AM +0200, Sandro Volery wrote:
> strcpy was used multiple times in strcpy to write into dev->name.
> I replaced them with strscpy.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sandro Volery <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c | 16 ++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
> index 8889494adf1f..cf8e9a23ebf9 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
> @@ -784,7 +784,7 @@ static int cvm_oct_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> priv->imode = CVMX_HELPER_INTERFACE_MODE_DISABLED;
> priv->port = CVMX_PIP_NUM_INPUT_PORTS;
> priv->queue = -1;
> - strcpy(dev->name, "pow%d");
> + strscpy(dev->name, "pow%d", sizeof(dev->name));
Is there a program which is generating a warning for this code? We know
that "pow%d" is 6 characters and static analysis tools can understand
this code fine so we know it's safe.
regards,
dan carpenter
> On 11 Sep 2019, at 10:52, Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 08:23:59AM +0200, Sandro Volery wrote:
>> strcpy was used multiple times in strcpy to write into dev->name.
>> I replaced them with strscpy.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sandro Volery <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c | 16 ++++++++--------
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
>> index 8889494adf1f..cf8e9a23ebf9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
>> @@ -784,7 +784,7 @@ static int cvm_oct_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> priv->imode = CVMX_HELPER_INTERFACE_MODE_DISABLED;
>> priv->port = CVMX_PIP_NUM_INPUT_PORTS;
>> priv->queue = -1;
>> - strcpy(dev->name, "pow%d");
>> + strscpy(dev->name, "pow%d", sizeof(dev->name));
>
> Is there a program which is generating a warning for this code? We know
> that "pow%d" is 6 characters and static analysis tools can understand
> this code fine so we know it's safe.
Well I was confused too but checkpatch complained about
it so I figured I'd clean it up quick
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:04:38AM +0200, Sandro Volery wrote:
>
>
> > On 11 Sep 2019, at 10:52, Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 08:23:59AM +0200, Sandro Volery wrote:
> >> strcpy was used multiple times in strcpy to write into dev->name.
> >> I replaced them with strscpy.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sandro Volery <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c | 16 ++++++++--------
> >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
> >> index 8889494adf1f..cf8e9a23ebf9 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
> >> @@ -784,7 +784,7 @@ static int cvm_oct_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> priv->imode = CVMX_HELPER_INTERFACE_MODE_DISABLED;
> >> priv->port = CVMX_PIP_NUM_INPUT_PORTS;
> >> priv->queue = -1;
> >> - strcpy(dev->name, "pow%d");
> >> + strscpy(dev->name, "pow%d", sizeof(dev->name));
> >
> > Is there a program which is generating a warning for this code? We know
> > that "pow%d" is 6 characters and static analysis tools can understand
> > this code fine so we know it's safe.
>
> Well I was confused too but checkpatch complained about
> it so I figured I'd clean it up quick
Ah. It's a new checkpatch warning. I don't care in that case. I'm
fine with replacing all of these in that case.
regards,
dan carpenter
On 11 Sep 2019, at 11:17, Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:04:38AM +0200, Sandro Volery wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> On 11 Sep 2019, at 10:52, Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 08:23:59AM +0200, Sandro Volery wrote:
>>>> strcpy was used multiple times in strcpy to write into dev->name.
>>>> I replaced them with strscpy.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sandro Volery <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c | 16 ++++++++--------
>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
>>>> index 8889494adf1f..cf8e9a23ebf9 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
>>>> @@ -784,7 +784,7 @@ static int cvm_oct_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> priv->imode = CVMX_HELPER_INTERFACE_MODE_DISABLED;
>>>> priv->port = CVMX_PIP_NUM_INPUT_PORTS;
>>>> priv->queue = -1;
>>>> - strcpy(dev->name, "pow%d");
>>>> + strscpy(dev->name, "pow%d", sizeof(dev->name));
>>>
>>> Is there a program which is generating a warning for this code? We know
>>> that "pow%d" is 6 characters and static analysis tools can understand
>>> this code fine so we know it's safe.
>>
>> Well I was confused too but checkpatch complained about
>> it so I figured I'd clean it up quick
>
> Ah. It's a new checkpatch warning. I don't care in that case. I'm
> fine with replacing all of these in that case.
Alright thanks. Can you review this?
Thanks,
Sandro V
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:21:44AM +0200, Sandro Volery wrote:
>
> On 11 Sep 2019, at 11:17, Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:04:38AM +0200, Sandro Volery wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> On 11 Sep 2019, at 10:52, Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 08:23:59AM +0200, Sandro Volery wrote:
> >>>> strcpy was used multiple times in strcpy to write into dev->name.
> >>>> I replaced them with strscpy.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Sandro Volery <[email protected]>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c | 16 ++++++++--------
> >>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
> >>>> index 8889494adf1f..cf8e9a23ebf9 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
> >>>> @@ -784,7 +784,7 @@ static int cvm_oct_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>>> priv->imode = CVMX_HELPER_INTERFACE_MODE_DISABLED;
> >>>> priv->port = CVMX_PIP_NUM_INPUT_PORTS;
> >>>> priv->queue = -1;
> >>>> - strcpy(dev->name, "pow%d");
> >>>> + strscpy(dev->name, "pow%d", sizeof(dev->name));
> >>>
> >>> Is there a program which is generating a warning for this code? We know
> >>> that "pow%d" is 6 characters and static analysis tools can understand
> >>> this code fine so we know it's safe.
> >>
> >> Well I was confused too but checkpatch complained about
> >> it so I figured I'd clean it up quick
> >
> > Ah. It's a new checkpatch warning. I don't care in that case. I'm
> > fine with replacing all of these in that case.
>
> Alright thanks. Can you review this?
>
Sure.
Reviewed-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
regards,
dan carpenter
On 11/09/2019 11.16, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:04:38AM +0200, Sandro Volery wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 11 Sep 2019, at 10:52, Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 08:23:59AM +0200, Sandro Volery wrote:
>>>> strcpy was used multiple times in strcpy to write into dev->name.
>>>> I replaced them with strscpy.
Yes, that's obviously what the patch does. The commit log is supposed to
explain _why_.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sandro Volery <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c | 16 ++++++++--------
>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
>>>> index 8889494adf1f..cf8e9a23ebf9 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
>>>> @@ -784,7 +784,7 @@ static int cvm_oct_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> priv->imode = CVMX_HELPER_INTERFACE_MODE_DISABLED;
>>>> priv->port = CVMX_PIP_NUM_INPUT_PORTS;
>>>> priv->queue = -1;
>>>> - strcpy(dev->name, "pow%d");
>>>> + strscpy(dev->name, "pow%d", sizeof(dev->name));
>>>
>>> Is there a program which is generating a warning for this code? We know
>>> that "pow%d" is 6 characters and static analysis tools can understand
>>> this code fine so we know it's safe.
>>
>> Well I was confused too but checkpatch complained about
>> it so I figured I'd clean it up quick
>
> Ah. It's a new checkpatch warning. I don't care in that case. I'm
> fine with replacing all of these in that case.
But why? It actually gives _less_ compile-time checking (gcc and all
static tools know perfectly well what strcpy is and does, but knows
nothing of strscpy). And using sizeof() instead of ARRAY_SIZE() means a
future reader is not even sure dev->name is not just a pointer.
Moreover, it's very likely also a runtime and .text pessimization, again
because gcc knows what strcpy does, so it can just do a few immediate
stores (e.g. 0x25776f70 for the "pow%" part) instead of emitting an
actual function call.
Rasmus