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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230530163546.986188-1-azeemshaikh38@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230530163546.986188-1-azeemshaikh38@gmail.com>
From:   John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 May 2023 11:16:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CANDhNCrZBWFGtt49_Eu=yvKLCxeydXXowbS_9VnTH2E6-wtvzg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource: Replace all non-returning strlcpy with strscpy
To:     Azeem Shaikh <azeemshaikh38@gmail.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 9:35=E2=80=AFAM Azeem Shaikh <azeemshaikh38@gmail.c=
om> wrote:
>
> strlcpy() reads the entire source buffer first.
> This read may exceed the destination size limit.
> This is both inefficient and can lead to linear read
> overflows if a source string is not NUL-terminated [1].
> In an effort to remove strlcpy() completely [2], replace
> strlcpy() here with strscpy().
> No return values were used, so direct replacement is safe.
>
> [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/deprecated.html#strlcp=
y
> [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/89
>
> Signed-off-by: Azeem Shaikh <azeemshaikh38@gmail.com>
> ---
>  kernel/time/clocksource.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/time/clocksource.c b/kernel/time/clocksource.c
> index 91836b727cef..88cbc1181b23 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/clocksource.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/clocksource.c
> @@ -1480,7 +1480,7 @@ static int __init boot_override_clocksource(char* s=
tr)
>  {
>         mutex_lock(&clocksource_mutex);
>         if (str)
> -               strlcpy(override_name, str, sizeof(override_name));
> +               strscpy(override_name, str, sizeof(override_name));
>         mutex_unlock(&clocksource_mutex);
>         return 1;
>  }

Sounds reasonable to me.

Acked-by: John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>

Thanks for submitting this!
-john