Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 Jul 2018 07:49:59 +0200 (CEST) | From | Julia Lawall <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] coccinelle: suggest replacing strncpy+truncation by strscpy |
| |
On Fri, 20 Jul 2018, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Julia Lawall wrote on Fri, Jul 20, 2018: > > > strscpy does however not clear the end of the destination buffer, so > > > there is a risk of information leak if the full buffer is copied as is > > > out of the kernel - this needs manual checking. > > > > As fasr as I can tell from lkml, only one of these patches has been > > accepted? There was also a concern about an information leak that there > > was no response to. Actually, I would prefer that more of the generated > > patches are accepted before accepting the semantic patch, for something > > that is not quite so obviously correct. > > As I'm pointing to the script which generated the patch in the generated > patches, I got told that it would be better to get the coccinelle script > accepted first, and asked others to hold on taking the patches at > several places - I didn't resend any v2 of these with strscpy yet mostly > for that reason.
I can't accept a semantic patch for which I can't judge the correctness. It would be better to put a proper commit message in the individual patches and get them accepted first.
The actual change is made by a script that is only a few lines long. You can put those lines in your commit message if you like.
> There were concerns for information leaks that I believe I adressed in > the specific patch that was pointed out by the concern (I might have > missed some?), but I'll take the time to check all the patches > individually before resending as well as filling in better commit > messages which also was one of the main concerns. > > I'm however a bit stuck if I'm waiting for the cocinelle script to be > accepted to resend the patches, but you're waiting for the individual > patches to be accepted to take the script... :) > > > I guess there is no value in the script landing first by itself, I'll > just remove the script path from the commit messages and resend the > first few this weekend.
It's not that there is no value to the script. The problem is that I don't know if the script is correct - I'm not familiar with these string functions. Once the script is in the kernel, it stays there beyond your patches, so I would prefer to know that it is correct up front, rather than having to remove it afterwards.
julia
| |