| To: | felipe_alfaro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 2.6]: IPv6: strcpy -> strlcpy |
| From: | YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:23:26 +0900 (JST) |
| Cc: | rmk+lkml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1069974209.5349.7.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | USAGI Project |
| References: | <1069970770.2138.10.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20031127221928.F25015@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1069974209.5349.7.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
In article <1069974209.5349.7.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Fri, 28 Nov
2003 00:03:29 +0100), Felipe Alfaro Solana <felipe_alfaro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> says:
> So, as I see:
>
> 1. We should fix strncpy()
> 2. I should replace strlcpy() with strncpy() in my patches.
I think it is NOT correct.
It SEEMS unsafe to use strncpy() even if it terminated
string correctly.
So, I'd suggest to replace
strlcpy(dst, src, len);
with
1) strlcpy0(dst, src, len);
where strlcpy0() is provided in my previous mail,
or with
2) memset(dst, 0, len);
strncpy(dst, src, len);
(or say, strncpy0())
or, with
3) if (len)
strncpy(dst, src, len - 1);
dst[len] = 0;
(or, say, strncpy0()).
--yoshfuji
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2.6]: IPv6: strcpy -> strlcpy, Felipe Alfaro Solana |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2.6]: IPv6: strcpy -> strlcpy, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 2.6]: IPv6: strcpy -> strlcpy, Felipe Alfaro Solana |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 2.6]: IPv6: strcpy -> strlcpy, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |