Messages in this thread | | | From | Ajay Garg <> | Date | Mon, 8 Nov 2021 14:16:16 +0530 | Subject | Re: RFC for a new string-copy function, using mixtures of strlcpy and strscpy |
| |
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 2:04 PM Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko > > > > For example, in file fs/kernfs/dir.c, there are methods like > > "kernfs_name_locked", "kernfs_path_from_node_locked" which simply > > consume the return-value without any checks. > > > > All the above functions have a simple motive : copy as much bytes as > > possible in the destination buffer, and then consume/return the number > > of bytes actually copied (minus the null-terminator byte of course). > > Nope. Read the comment WRT strscpy().
Seems there is a confusion.
I meant the functions "kernfs_name_locked" and others in fs/kernfs/dir.c, that use strlcpy and then simply consume/propogate the return-value without any checks.
> > > If checks are to be put in-place, it would be too much code/churn, > > adding if checks all over the place. > > Yep, that's why in some cases where we know that there can't be > overflow the checks are not present. In some cases it's historically > like this, in some cases checks might be useful and so on. But no, we > do not need more chaos in the string functions. >
If the client knows that overflow cannot be there, it is better to use the simple vanilla strcpy. Using strlcpy means that the client believes there might be case when src-buffer might be bigger.
Again, functions like "kernfs_name_locked" and others in fs/kernfs/dir.c demonstrate that the client cannot be sure whether the src-buffer is small enough to be fit into the dest-buffer.
Thanks and Regards, Ajay
| |