Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <ee69ac82-bc62-a288-d7c9-bb432a1b5959@yandex.ru>
Date:   Wed, 21 Jun 2023 11:08:46 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.12.0
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Cc:     Christophe Jaillet <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230620100803.519926-1-dmantipov@yandex.ru>
 <ZJHO/pa7JB49j3rN@google.com>
From:   Dmitry Antipov <dmantipov@yandex.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [v2] wifi: mwifiex: avoid strlcpy() and use strscpy()
 where appropriate
In-Reply-To: <ZJHO/pa7JB49j3rN@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 6/20/23 19:08, Brian Norris wrote:

> I'm not sure how a compile-time constant makes this "unsafe" at all, but
> if you feel the need to change this, then sure, this works too.

The only reason is to avoid strlcpy() which is now considered deprecated.

> FWIW, this 'firmware' pointer is all derived from compile-time constants
> too. So the commit messages seems misleading ("all other calls [...]
> should be safe" --> well, *all* calls are safe).

Indeed. So I think we can stay with strcpy() everywhere except strlcpy() to strscpy() replacement
(just to follow https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/deprecated.html#strlcpy rather than
to fix something).

Dmitry