On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 05:08:27PM -0400, Azeem Shaikh wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 4:51 PM Richard Weinberger <rich...@nod.at> wrote: > > > > ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- > > > Von: "Azeem Shaikh" <azeemshaik...@gmail.com> > > > 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(). > > > No return values were used, so direct replacement is safe. > > > > > > [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/deprecated.html#strlcpy > > > [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/89 > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Azeem Shaikh <azeemshaik...@gmail.com> > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <l...@intel.com> > > > Closes: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202305311135.zgmt1gyr-...@intel.com/ > > > > Are you sure Reported-by and Closes make sense? > > AFAIK the report was only on your first patch and nothing against upstream. > > So stating this in the updated patch is in vain. > > I left the metadata in only for the sake of posterity. If it's not > helpful, I'm ok with removing it. >
IMO using Reported-by in cases like this is harmful, as it makes commits seem like bug fixes when they are not. - Eric _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
