Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <c0005a09c89c20093ac699c97e7420331ec46b01.camel@perches.com>
 <9c7a79b4d21aea52464d00c8fa4e4b92638560b6.camel@perches.com>
 <CAHk-=wiL7jqYNfYrNikgBw3byY+Zn37-8D8yR=WUu0x=_2BpZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a5f470c1375289908c37632572c4aa60d6486fa.camel@perches.com>
 <4398924f28a58fca296d101dae11e7accce80656.camel@perches.com>
 <ad42da450ccafcb571cca9289dcf52840dbb53d3.camel@perches.com>
 <20190820092451.791c85e5@canb.auug.org.au> <14723fccc2c3362cc045df17fc8554f37c8a8529.camel@perches.com>
 <CAHk-=wgqQKoAnhmhGE-2PBFt7oQs9LLAATKbYa573UO=DPBE0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <9d12995c5e7e41fc5d8ba202f76a2cf854183245.camel@perches.com> <CAHk-=wi6bEnBy11HJBbgPsG3-ctE6Zyi2+3cnozjMAafSUBAaQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wi6bEnBy11HJBbgPsG3-ctE6Zyi2+3cnozjMAafSUBAaQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date:   Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:58:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdVtCKVXNghfrs6RgtSDC08c0eyR-xD6d7mkZuSSPEFY-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: rfc: treewide scripted patch mechanism? (was: Re: [PATCH]
 Makefile: Convert -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 to just -Wimplicit-fallthrough for clang)QUILT
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Linus,

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 2:41 AM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 4:37 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > So I'm putting my foot down on yet another broken string copy
> > > interface from people who do not understand this fundamental issue.
> >
> > I think you are mistaken about the stracpy limits as
> > the only limit is not the source size but the dest.
> >
> > Why should the source be size limited?
>
> You just proved my point. You don't understand that sources can also
> be limited, and the limit on a source can be *smaller* than the limit
> of a destination.
>
> Did we learn *NOTHING* from the complete and utter disaster that was strlcpy()?
>
> Do you not understand why strlcpy() was unacceptably bad, and why the
> people who converted strncpy() to it introduced real bugs?
>
> The fact is, it's not just the destination that has a size limit. The
> source often has one too.
>
> And no, the source is not always guaranteed to be NUL-terminated, nor
> is the source buffer guaranteed to be larger than the destination
> buffer.
>
> Now, if you *know* that the source is smaller than the destination
> size, you can do:
>
>     len = strnlen(src, srclen);
>     memcpy(dst, len);
>     dst[len] = 0;
>
> and that's not wrong, but that works only when
>
>  (a) you actually do the above
>
>  (b) you have no data races on src (or you at least only require that
> 'dst' is NUL-terminated, not that 'len' is necessarily the correct
> length of the result
>
>  (c) you actually know as the programmer that yes, the source is
> definitely smaller than the destination.
>
> and honestly, people don't get _any_ of that right.

(d) you know the untouched trailing end of dst[] does not leak data.

Anything else we're missing?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds