Re: [PATCH v2] staging: rtl8192e: Replace strcpy with strcat in rtl819x_translate_scan

Abhishek Tamboli
2024-08-24T16:59:58Z

On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 01:45:00PM +0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 09:04:11PM +0530, Abhishek Tamboli wrote:
> > Replace strcpy() with strcat() in rtl819x_translate_scan()
> > Also Fix proto_name[] buffer size issue to accommodate all
> > network modes.
>
> When you say "also" in a changelog text, that's a huge hint that this
> should probably be split up into multiple changes. Please do that here.
Sure, I'll do it.
> More comments below.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Abhishek Tamboli <abhishektamboli9@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > Changes in v2:
> > - Revert the use of strscpy and replaced it with strcat.
> > - Remove the 'pname' and replace it's usage with direct
> > operations on 'proto_name' buffer.
> >
> > drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtllib_wx.c | 13 ++++++-------
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtllib_wx.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtllib_wx.c
> > index fbd4ec824084..ec0c4c5bade7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtllib_wx.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtllib_wx.c
> > @@ -23,14 +23,14 @@ static const char * const rtllib_modes[] = {
> > };
> >
> > #define MAX_CUSTOM_LEN 64
> > +#define MAX_PROTO_NAME_LEN 10
>
> Where did this "10" come from? What sets this limit? Why not 100?
> 1000? 2? You get the idea :)
>
yes, I got it.
> > static inline char *rtl819x_translate_scan(struct rtllib_device *ieee,
> > char *start, char *stop,
> > struct rtllib_network *network,
> > struct iw_request_info *info)
> > {
> > char custom[MAX_CUSTOM_LEN];
> > - char proto_name[6];
> > - char *pname = proto_name;
> > + char proto_name[MAX_PROTO_NAME_LEN];
> > char *p;
> > struct iw_event iwe;
> > int i, j;
> > @@ -59,13 +59,12 @@ static inline char *rtl819x_translate_scan(struct rtllib_device *ieee,
> > }
> > /* Add the protocol name */
> > iwe.cmd = SIOCGIWNAME;
> > + /* Initialise proto_name as an empty string*/
> > + memset(proto_name, '\0', sizeof(proto_name));
> > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(rtllib_modes); i++) {
> > - if (network->mode & BIT(i)) {
> > - strcpy(pname, rtllib_modes[i]);
> > - pname += strlen(rtllib_modes[i]);
> > + if (network->mode & BIT(i))
> > + strcat(proto_name, rtllib_modes[i]);
> > }
> > - }
>
> I think the } placement is now incorrect, right? Did you run checkpatch
> on this change?
Yes, I do run the checkpatch on this change and didn't get any warnings
or errors.

Thanks, for the feedback. I'll do the changes.

Regards,
Abhishek