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:   Sun, 25 Jul 2021 15:58:44 +0200
From:   Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Phil Reid <preid@electromag.com.au>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        "open list:FRAMEBUFFER LAYER" <linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-staging@lists.linux.dev,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] staging/fbtft: Remove all strcpy() uses
Message-ID: <20210725135844.GA1953@titan>
References: <20210724151411.9531-1-len.baker@gmx.com>
 <20210724151411.9531-2-len.baker@gmx.com>
 <CAHp75Vd+ZM_yO6CU_6oJieePMt00Sp6oKEU2+QEyZxLDg5PN8A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75Vd+ZM_yO6CU_6oJieePMt00Sp6oKEU2+QEyZxLDg5PN8A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 11:21:04PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 7:05 PM Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com> wrote:
> >
> > strcpy() performs no bounds checking on the destination buffer. This
> > could result in linear overflows beyond the end of the buffer, leading
> > to all kinds of misbehaviors. The safe replacement is strscpy() but in
> > this case it is simpler to use the "%*ph" format specifier.
>
> ...
>
> > -       char msg[128];
>
> 128 / 4 =3D 32. So, this buffer is enough to debug print only up to 32
> bytes. Hence %*ph replacement won't cut output earlier than requested.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to explain. Moreover=
,
with the "0x%02X " in the sprintf followed by the strcat, the msg buffer c=
an
print 128/5 values (25 hex values).

The %*ph replacement can print up to 64 bytes, so I don't see any problem
here.

>
> ...
>
> > +                       for (j =3D i + 1; par->init_sequence[j] >=3D 0=
; j++);
>
> Why is i + 1 initial for the j? You may rather access the 'i + 1 +
> j'th element in the array...
>
> ...
>
> > +                                     par->init_sequence[i], j - i - 1=
,
>
> ...and get rid of the ' - i -1' part here.

Yes, it was the first idea but I prefer this method since we save aritmeth=
ic
operations. In other words, if I use what you suggest, the index for
par->init_sequence is calculated as a "sum" every iteration. But if the
performance is not an issue and you believe that the above is more clear, =
I
have no problem. What do you prefer?

Thanks,
Len