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;
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To:     'Will Deacon' <will@kernel.org>,
        "xu.panda668@gmail.com" <xu.panda668@gmail.com>
CC:     "catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        "broonie@kernel.org" <broonie@kernel.org>,
        "maz@kernel.org" <maz@kernel.org>,
        "kristina.martsenko@arm.com" <kristina.martsenko@arm.com>,
        "vladimir.murzin@arm.com" <vladimir.murzin@arm.com>,
        "mark.rutland@arm.com" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        "ardb@kernel.org" <ardb@kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "cgel.zte@gmail.com" <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
Thread-Topic: [PATCH linux-next] arm64/idreg: use strscpy() is more robust and
 safer
Thread-Index: AQHY1+dBQlRmI/zldUe2KkA+YOQema3/0VNg
Date:   Wed, 5 Oct 2022 13:57:34 +0000
Message-ID: <8533a82ace484fe4ab73fccea7dc009b@AcuMS.aculab.com>
References: <20220929072905.282639-1-xu.panda668@gmail.com>
 <20221004114818.GA23663@willie-the-truck>
In-Reply-To: <20221004114818.GA23663@willie-the-truck>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

From: Will Deacon
> Sent: 04 October 2022 12:48
> 
> 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.

In this case the input string isn't NUL terminated....

> >
> > 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?

I doubt the code was tested.
It is always wrong regardless of the initial value of 'len'.

I think using strscpy() will delete the last character
and always add two '\0'.

On the face of it, that could probably be a memcpy().

But with the checks you don't need any of the length
checks that memcpy() might be gaining.

OTOH, if the code used parameqn() a few lines lower the
entire copy could be removed.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)