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;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
From:   Sandro Volery <sandro@volery.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: octeon: Avoid several usecases of strcpy
Date:   Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:21:44 +0200
Message-Id: <C1B40FAD-9F8F-449D-B10C-334BAC76797D@volery.com>
References: <20190911091659.GI15977@kadam>
Cc:     devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        aaro.koskinen@iki.fi
In-Reply-To: <20190911091659.GI15977@kadam>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 11 Sep 2019, at 11:17, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> ﻿On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:04:38AM +0200, Sandro Volery wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>> On 11 Sep 2019, at 10:52, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> 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 <sandro@volery.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> 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