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

[Abhishek Tamboli <abhishektamboli9@gmail.com>]

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