Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 17 Dec 2020 22:15:24 +0100 (CET)
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
To:     Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>
Cc:     tytso <tytso@mit.edu>, linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Message-ID: <1954206563.139982.1608239724384.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
In-Reply-To: <CA1BD917-22BD-4AAD-877D-BDF41B36D945@dilger.ca>
References: <20201201151301.22025-1-richard@nod.at> <X9ujIOJG/HqMr88R@mit.edu> <CA1BD917-22BD-4AAD-877D-BDF41B36D945@dilger.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Don't leak old mountpoint samples
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Thread-Topic: ext4: Don't leak old mountpoint samples
Thread-Index: 5/agPCILI9+Z5tj3UF1N6yN+vCIJ5Q==
Precedence: bulk

----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
>>    Fix this by using strncpy() instead of strlcpy().  The superblock
>>    field is defined to be a fixed-size char array, and it is already
>>    marked using __nonstring in fs/ext4/ext4.h.  The consumer of the field
>>    in e2fsprogs already assumes that in the case of a 64+ byte mount
>>    path, that s_last_mounted will not be NUL terminated.
>> 
>>    Reported-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
>>    Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
> 
> Color me confused, but I don't see how this change makes any difference?
> If "cp" is only "/" then it will *still* not overwrite "edia/johnjdeveloper"
> at the end of the s_last_mounted array.  To my mind, the only difference
> between using strlcpy() and strncpy() would be whether the last byte in
> the array can be used or not, but doesn't affect the remaining bytes.

strncpy() zeros all remaining bytes.

Thanks,
//richard