The strlcpy should not be used because it doesn't limit the source
length. As linus says, it's a completely useless function if you
can't implicitly trust the source string - but that is almost always
why people think they should use it! All in all the BSD function
will lead some potential bugs.
But the strscpy doesn't require reading memory from the src string
beyond the specified "count" bytes, and since the return value is
easier to error-check than strlcpy()'s. In addition, the implementation
is robust to the string changing out from underneath it, unlike the
current strlcpy() implementation.
Thus, We prefer using strscpy instead of strlcpy.
Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm/mach-s3c/mach-mini6410.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c/mach-mini6410.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c/mach-mini6410.c
index 741fa1f09694..c14c2e27127b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c/mach-mini6410.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c/mach-mini6410.c
@@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ static char mini6410_features_str[12] __initdata = "0";
static int __init mini6410_features_setup(char *str)
{
if (str)
- strlcpy(mini6410_features_str, str,
+ strscpy(mini6410_features_str, str,
sizeof(mini6410_features_str));
return 1;
}
--
2.33.0
On Mon, 6 Sep 2021 21:46:56 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> The strlcpy should not be used because it doesn't limit the source
> length. As linus says, it's a completely useless function if you
> can't implicitly trust the source string - but that is almost always
> why people think they should use it! All in all the BSD function
> will lead some potential bugs.
>
> But the strscpy doesn't require reading memory from the src string
> beyond the specified "count" bytes, and since the return value is
> easier to error-check than strlcpy()'s. In addition, the implementation
> is robust to the string changing out from underneath it, unlike the
> current strlcpy() implementation.
>
> [...]
Applied, thanks!
[1/1] ARM: s3c: Use strscpy to replace strlcpy
commit: aa519471715ce73034ffaa52fc85681de31c1acf
Best regards,
--
Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>