Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:2 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:2;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAAMvbhG40h6pqSf91BurDHQqeoKfP30bwnpvSDRHBN4Hoygqew@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZTCLLinnaqIILXsJ@debian.me> <cf6950bc-32c8-459c-a4b1-ca0a291fc2f8@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <cf6950bc-32c8-459c-a4b1-ca0a291fc2f8@infradead.org>
From:   James Dutton <james.dutton@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Oct 2023 19:13:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAMvbhHvyiWKb9Pn9=JUuE_efWK2EMcy2SBP6p_BvLGCjwW_VA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is strncpy really less secure than strscpy ?
To:     Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc:     Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Calvince Otieno <calvncce@gmail.com>,
        Azeem Shaikh <azeemshaikh38@gmail.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 at 02:49, Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> What if printf("a is  %.*s\n", a);?
Um, it fails to compile.
>
> >
> >
> > So, why isn't the printk format specifier "%.*s" used more instead of
> > "%s" in the kernel?
>
> Since basically strings are pointers.
Um, I was trying to draw people's attention to the fact that "%.*s" is
much safer than "%s".
"%s" is like strcpy() but for print statements.
"%.*s" is like strncpy() but for print statements.

Why wasn't "%.*s" also included in the string discussions previously?