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;
Message-ID: <645bc156.170a0220.62d12.7fb3@mx.google.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 May 2023 09:07:50 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, elver@google.com, dvyukov@google.com,
        kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, andy@kernel.org,
        ndesaulniers@google.com, nathan@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] string: use __builtin_memcpy() in strlcpy/strlcat
References: <20230424112313.3408363-1-glider@google.com>
 <6446ad55.170a0220.c82cd.cedc@mx.google.com>
 <CAG_fn=UzQ-jnQrxzvLE6EV37zSVCOGPmsVTxyfp1wXzBir4vAg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAG_fn=UzQ-jnQrxzvLE6EV37zSVCOGPmsVTxyfp1wXzBir4vAg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 03:48:28PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> >
> > I *think* this isn't a problem for CONFIG_FORTIFY, since these will be
> > replaced and checked separately -- but it still seems strange that you
> > need to explicitly use __builtin_memcpy.
> >
> > Does this end up changing fortify coverage?
> 
> Is fortify relevant here? Note that the whole file is compiled with
> __NO_FORTIFY.

Yeah, agreed. I think I was just curious if that got verified. I'm good
with this.

Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>

-- 
Kees Cook