Re: [PATCH] HID: uhid: refactor deprecated strncpy

David Rheinsberg
2023-09-15T07:36:54Z

Hi

On Fri, Sep 15, 2023, at 7:13 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> - /* @hid is zero-initialized, strncpy() is correct, strlcpy() not */
>> - len = min(sizeof(hid->name), sizeof(ev->u.create2.name)) - 1;
>> - strncpy(hid->name, ev->u.create2.name, len);
>> - len = min(sizeof(hid->phys), sizeof(ev->u.create2.phys)) - 1;
>> - strncpy(hid->phys, ev->u.create2.phys, len);
>> - len = min(sizeof(hid->uniq), sizeof(ev->u.create2.uniq)) - 1;
>> - strncpy(hid->uniq, ev->u.create2.uniq, len);
>
> ev->u.create2 is:
> struct uhid_create2_req {
> __u8 name[128];
> __u8 phys[64];
> __u8 uniq[64];
> ...
>
> hid is:
> struct hid_device { /* device report descriptor */
> ...
> char name[128]; /* Device name */
> char phys[64]; /* Device physical location */
> char uniq[64]; /* Device unique identifier (serial #) */
>
> So these "min" calls are redundant -- it wants to copy at most 1 less so
> it can be %NUL terminated. Which is what strscpy() already does. And
> source and dest are the same size, so we can't over-read source if it
> weren't terminated (since strscpy won't overread like strlcpy).

I *really* think we should keep the `min` calls. The compiler should already optimize them away, as both arguments are compile-time constants. There is no inherent reason why source and target are equal in size. Yes, it is unlikely to change, but I don't understand why we would want to implicitly rely on it, rather than make the compiler verify it for us. And `struct hid_device` is very much allowed to change in the future.

As an alternative, you can use BUILD_BUG_ON() and verify both are equal in length.

Thanks
David