Wolfram and Andy, On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 11:33 AM Andrew Price <anpr...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 24/08/2022 21:08, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > Hi Andy. > > > >>> - strlcpy(sdp->sd_proto_name, proto, GFS2_FSNAME_LEN); > >>> - strlcpy(sdp->sd_table_name, table, GFS2_FSNAME_LEN); > >>> + strscpy(sdp->sd_proto_name, proto, GFS2_FSNAME_LEN); > >>> + strscpy(sdp->sd_table_name, table, GFS2_FSNAME_LEN); > >> > >> Perhaps the size should be changed to GFS2_LOCKNAME_LEN to match the size > >> of > >> the destination, too. > >> > >> With that addition, this patch fixes this syzkaller report: > >> > >> https://listman.redhat.com/archives/cluster-devel/2022-August/022755.html > > > > Linus wrote another summary about strlcpy vs. strscpy use[1]. So, the > > size argument should be the size of the smaller buffer if the buffers > > are of different size. GFS2_LOCKNAME_LEN is smaller, so that looks > > suitable. Shall I resend the patch with the suggested change? > > Yes, please. I can't speak for the gfs2 maintainers but I think it would > be a good plan, as the combination of strscpy and the size change fixes > a bug.
thanks, I've fixed this in for-next now: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gfs2/linux-gfs2.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=204c0300c4e99707e9fb6e57840aa1127060e63f Andreas