From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 786E8173 for ; Sun, 25 Jul 2021 13:59:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1627221537; bh=9JOWuUIENdIuSyDGKKcT4bIsyOiev+WVf9ryeJ+imdE=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=P6kt0i8XF6A0F0yygNB/gkp3bZnqqKKLvcORcR84uwwllPD3flVNmjpKkILWIj4AL BrR8dbxa6sBhhfL9WF743xKu8l6DASgU9KqByPyBQSrv7BgPhsin0oy8iJ6VCzvJY8 Gw1vCtrKEtsOc78viDkj2mB3KVosfhBXtZedag6s= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from titan ([83.52.228.41]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.174]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MxDou-1lAKwS3Ptw-00xcK1; Sun, 25 Jul 2021 15:58:56 +0200 Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2021 15:58:44 +0200 From: Len Baker To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Len Baker , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Phil Reid , Geert Uytterhoeven , dri-devel , "open list:FRAMEBUFFER LAYER" , linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] staging/fbtft: Remove all strcpy() uses Message-ID: <20210725135844.GA1953@titan> References: <20210724151411.9531-1-len.baker@gmx.com> <20210724151411.9531-2-len.baker@gmx.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:iAqHZEABVjEHSpYT/IzYlVIkOHoMdCujwMQ6INd7zOiseMdT/st 3LaYh3CImBe0kCexfi/eaHk7hTgIeSRAU/TjzYC71zay9UXyybrY1rx0XdBv8eGVWcK0jOy nFWo6knPP/H5sFodeL6Vk3flzYR8u8geyXI7qve4eXBNpFhfQ52KBpsXAyzgQqPWib0K5y/ FDueNX/Pn/Lh5KkmYLPHg== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:MEWIDFz4tLM=:Bl8LVt8MUnomMU2m6J980r dJxwSdOTDwOnyKoXm1xwlsvvQi+HKAIuK2yCFGliWF2Ppk79ZeJz0gsgqkFnRqmfrA2UQ8gr2 q/mXYnabD4L6t+dALHYG7/RdFKBCieuSBw262oChGCA11oGTTIuaE7suH/Q0ibK+32rExXVsw TaarFA1KLbuP5H6IUNej9s1p5wrGPtsPgAWz4tk5rFkQNiV2afGIaGMLubMcVUaaLFqTS6s1G Iu0E92mUoGSY2nO6Q+AaPE2cS0S0hdOXqouekXLlXe7RPqA3+J2Y5GGdP8l1C4IiUziL3+oYY EFSGlfL5ZcyynwRNyHORqCwmMVKHZY4oTF0HNSczZBgKllrRC/4RhEzrK00FxDFn6xvf3a+B4 Ox6zAJC/qUhEBRxXBm83GY8SUKuf84/C15BA3R2J23buHp1rx+aWzj4r0TXe2aXasrpls6DMi SWJkz5VdInaMy9iTrAbBIxJTteQ8j5XdLY3b0C8qMhKMJaKRYDQkuzsMUTJTQKeXAOcFDJkuj uB6FIm49j/zFPasxaRO3jBfJJE0dxoMhP2X/zj7uq7wroT5zW7EAAQBojxPT7wQ2r/dMbPRjf osqq8o6ulHRaIcwgs2o/hMTOqCvcR4HBsz00TzZFohuLBwp+zJ+Y0iZ6l9QbQwMvyELlr7wcm 43psQVZwrYohLN8/l94HHVL36f/h+YqJFEgMwmQeD22CymYesK8ZDZKeqvXSyEbwImCyLcJv5 elt5XydXm03aO3g8mHedThErBwjX8oS/tFL+ocPp6KZdJuzum4M+MxUgtNoK2jW7vGNDxbLQz XJsxbB2m1atmbgHX71J8HP/BKIb3X+MPcd7mYTJ9zD/MS8iBHbNFhei9vLYl/gcsZM6VuRiKQ XSp1IwlGGUv0SsRuGH47p6jhcAqvDpnE3eBl2/Zsxw0bqQ9P4i7zzhbfLVBk3lfc/IaawVOjX o7EjGQ++1eNsj4F75gJ1lQEl8V+HXT5bkpOx3CpFLidDb9aqEY48rCKovyLuD4mVat+giicB7 6dHr4fpldjq7dB5rCHNuYEYZ1Q9RKeoZiMsgoEopx6wXwRoUroDhyYsCtVjuzlEj5mSYtc8Pu 2YaxZ1q7RPTuicbfJGfxcMxtj7a+l+WFnhd Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 11:21:04PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 7:05 PM Len Baker wrote: > > > > strcpy() performs no bounds checking on the destination buffer. This > > could result in linear overflows beyond the end of the buffer, leading > > to all kinds of misbehaviors. The safe replacement is strscpy() but in > > this case it is simpler to use the "%*ph" format specifier. > > ... > > > - char msg[128]; > > 128 / 4 =3D 32. So, this buffer is enough to debug print only up to 32 > bytes. Hence %*ph replacement won't cut output earlier than requested. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to explain. Moreover= , with the "0x%02X " in the sprintf followed by the strcat, the msg buffer c= an print 128/5 values (25 hex values). The %*ph replacement can print up to 64 bytes, so I don't see any problem here. > > ... > > > + for (j =3D i + 1; par->init_sequence[j] >=3D 0= ; j++); > > Why is i + 1 initial for the j? You may rather access the 'i + 1 + > j'th element in the array... > > ... > > > + par->init_sequence[i], j - i - 1= , > > ...and get rid of the ' - i -1' part here. Yes, it was the first idea but I prefer this method since we save aritmeth= ic operations. In other words, if I use what you suggest, the index for par->init_sequence is calculated as a "sum" every iteration. But if the performance is not an issue and you believe that the above is more clear, = I have no problem. What do you prefer? Thanks, Len