Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 4 Oct 2022 12:48:19 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To:     xu.panda668@gmail.com
Cc:     catalin.marinas@arm.com, broonie@kernel.org, maz@kernel.org,
        kristina.martsenko@arm.com, vladimir.murzin@arm.com,
        mark.rutland@arm.com, ardb@kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        cgel.zte@gmail.com, Xu Panda <xu.panda@zte.com.cn>,
        Zeal Robot <zealci@zte.com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] arm64/idreg: use strscpy() is more robust and
 safer
Message-ID: <20221004114818.GA23663@willie-the-truck>
References: <20220929072905.282639-1-xu.panda668@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220929072905.282639-1-xu.panda668@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 07:29:06AM +0000, xu.panda668@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Xu Panda <xu.panda@zte.com.cn>
> 
> The implementation of strscpy() is more robust and safer.
> That's now the recommended way to copy NUL terminated strings.
> 
> Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@zte.com.cn>
> Signed-off-by: Xu Panda <xu.panda@zte.com.cn>
> Signed-off-by: Xu Panda <xu.panda668@gmail.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kernel/idreg-override.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/idreg-override.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/idreg-override.c
> index 95133765ed29..61bbec7ef62e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/idreg-override.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/idreg-override.c
> @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ static __init void __parse_cmdline(const char *cmdline, bool parse_aliases)
>                         return;
> 
>                 len = min(len, ARRAY_SIZE(buf) - 1);
> -               strncpy(buf, cmdline, len);
> +               strscpy(buf, cmdline, len);
>                 buf[len] = 0;

Aren't we terminating the buffer explicitly here anyway?

Will