From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6]: IPv6: strcpy -> strlcpy Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 22:33:48 +0000 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20031127223348.G25015@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1069934643.2393.0.camel@teapot.felipe-alfaro.com> <20031127.210953.116254624.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <20031127194602.A25015@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20031128.045413.133305490.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <20031127200041.B25015@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <1069970770.2138.10.camel@teapot.felipe-alfaro.com> <20031127221928.F25015@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: To: Felipe Alfaro Solana , "YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@?(B" , davem@redhat.com, Linux Kernel Mailinglist , netdev@oss.sgi.com Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031127221928.F25015@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>; from rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk on Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 10:19:28PM +0000 Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 10:19:28PM +0000, Russell King wrote: > Note: we should really fix the generic strncpy() - there are places in > the kernel source which rely on the x86 strncpy() behaviour today (eg, > binfmt_*.c core file generation.) Sorry, bad example. Hmm, from a glance around, it seems that all of the places which use strncpy() implicitly zero the buffer prior to using strncpy(). This means that the x86 strncpy is doing unnecessary zeroing. I do remember Alan complaining about the last set of strlcpy() stuff introducing information leaks - maybe those got fixed though. Ok, I don't know where the kernel stands on this issue anymore. Can someone definitively provide a statement of exactly what the kernel expects of strncpy() ? -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/ 2.6 Serial core