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;
Date:   Thu, 27 Jul 2023 10:04:22 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
Cc:     Amitkumar Karwar <amitkarwar@gmail.com>,
        Ganapathi Bhat <ganapathi017@gmail.com>,
        Sharvari Harisangam <sharvari.harisangam@nxp.com>,
        Xinming Hu <huxinming820@gmail.com>,
        Azeem Shaikh <azeemshaikh38@gmail.com>,
        linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: mwifiex: Replace strlcpy with strscpy
Message-ID: <202307271003.BCF5F3597@keescook>
References: <20230710030625.812707-1-azeemshaikh38@gmail.com>
 <169047317161.2400214.15246406234885315012.b4-ty@chromium.org>
 <87pm4dz6js.fsf@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87pm4dz6js.fsf@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 07:02:31PM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 03:06:25 +0000, Azeem Shaikh 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().
> >> 
> >> [...]
> >
> > Applied, thanks!
> >
> > [1/1] wifi: mwifiex: Replace strlcpy with strscpy
> >       https://git.kernel.org/kees/c/5469fb73e96d
> 
> And the same question here, why are you taking wifi patches without
> acks? And this already fixed differently in wireless-next so our trees
> conflict now:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wireless/wireless-next.git/commit/?id=caf9ead2c7d06fd7aa4cb48bd569ad61db9a0b4a

Thanks for pointing that out! I saw no feedback on Azeem's patch, so it
looked like it was being ignored.

For the patch you linked to -- it's okay to have lost the overflow
detection and warning?

Regardless, I will drop this from my tree.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook