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:   Sat, 4 Sep 2021 13:23:03 +0200
From:   Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc:     Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Robert Richter <rric@kernel.org>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] EDAC/mc: Prefer strscpy or scnprintf over strcpy
Message-ID: <20210904094451.GA2998@titan>
References: <20210903150539.7282-1-len.baker@gmx.com>
 <3a035a3ec4571a622ce640e042f9a119@perches.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3a035a3ec4571a622ce640e042f9a119@perches.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 10:03:18AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On 2021-09-03 08:05, Len Baker wrote:
> > strcpy() performs no bounds checking on the destination buffer.
> > len.baker@gmx.com/
>
> []
>
> > @@ -1113,12 +1115,9 @@ void edac_mc_handle_error(const enum
> > hw_event_mc_err_type type,
> >  			p =3D e->label;
> >  			*p =3D '\0';
> >  		} else {
> > -			if (p !=3D e->label) {
> > -				strcpy(p, OTHER_LABEL);
> > -				p +=3D strlen(OTHER_LABEL);
> > -			}
> > -			strcpy(p, dimm->label);
> > -			p +=3D strlen(p);
> > +			n +=3D scnprintf(e->label + n, sizeof(e->label) - n,
> > +				       "%s%s", prefix, dimm->label);
> > +			prefix =3D OTHER_LABEL;
>
> OTHER_LABEL is a define specific to this module
>
> IMO: Used once text macros are just obfuscating and should be removed.

This macro is used in "/include/linux/edac.h" as follows:

struct edac_raw_error_desc {
	[...]
	char label[(EDAC_MC_LABEL_LEN + 1 + sizeof(OTHER_LABEL)) * EDAC_MAX_LABEL=
S];
	[...]
};

If we remove this define the size of label would be:

	char label[(EDAC_MC_LABEL_LEN + 6) * EDAC_MAX_LABELS];

So, I think now is more complicated to understand because the size is
what it is. If you prefer this option, I can remove the macro and add
a comment with some explanation.

Regards,
Len