lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] powerpc/64: Fix build failure with GCC 8.1
Date
Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> writes:
> Le 31/05/2018 à 07:54, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
>> Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> writes:
>>> Le 29/05/2018 à 11:05, Geert Uytterhoeven a écrit :
>>>> Hi Christophe,
>>>> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Christophe LEROY
>>>> <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> wrote:
>>>>> Le 29/05/2018 à 09:47, Geert Uytterhoeven a écrit :
>>>>>> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 8:03 AM, Christophe Leroy
>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/nvram_64.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/nvram_64.c
>>>>>>> @@ -1039,7 +1039,7 @@ loff_t __init nvram_create_partition(const char
>>>>>>> *name, int sig,
>>>>>>> new_part->index = free_part->index;
>>>>>>> new_part->header.signature = sig;
>>>>>>> new_part->header.length = size;
>>>>>>> - strncpy(new_part->header.name, name, 12);
>>>>>>> + memcpy(new_part->header.name, name, strnlen(name,
>>>>>>> sizeof(new_part->header.name)));
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The comment for nvram_header.lgnth says:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /* Terminating null required only for names < 12 chars. */
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This will not terminate the string with a zero (the struct is
>>>>>> allocated with kmalloc).
>>>>>> So the original code is correct, the new one isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, then I have to first zeroize the destination.
>>>>
>>>> Using kzalloc() instead of kmalloc() will do.
>>>>
>>>> Still, papering around these warnings seems to obscure things, IMHO.
>>>> And it increases code size, as you had to add a call to strnlen().
>>
>>
>> The right fix is to not try and mirror the on-device structure in the
>> kernel struct. We should just use a proper NULL terminated string, which
>> would avoid the need to explicitly do strncmp(.., .., 12) in the code
>> and be less bug prone in general.
>>
>> The only place where we should need to worry about the 12 byte buffer is
>> in nvram_write_header().
>>
>> Anyway that's a bigger change, so I'll take this for now with kzalloc().
>
> Thanks. You take it as is and add the kzalloc() or you expect a v3 from
> me with the kzalloc()

Sorry that wasn't clear was it. I'll add the kzalloc().

cheers

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-31 13:18    [W:0.061 / U:0.772 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site