On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:00:11 +0530 Suresh Jayaraman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 08/20/2011 06:49 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > > ...it's more efficient since we know the length. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[email protected]> > > --- > > fs/cifs/cifsencrypt.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifsencrypt.c b/fs/cifs/cifsencrypt.c > > index e76bfeb..f11dfb6 100644 > > --- a/fs/cifs/cifsencrypt.c > > +++ b/fs/cifs/cifsencrypt.c > > @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ int cifs_sign_smb(struct smb_hdr *cifs_pdu, struct > > TCP_Server_Info *server, > > return rc; > > > > if (!server->session_estab) { > > - strncpy(cifs_pdu->Signature.SecuritySignature, "BSRSPYL", 8); > > + memcpy(cifs_pdu->Signature.SecuritySignature, "BSRSPYL", 8); > > return rc; > > } > > > > @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ int cifs_sign_smb2(struct kvec *iov, int n_vec, struct > > TCP_Server_Info *server, > > return rc; > > > > if (!server->session_estab) { > > - strncpy(cifs_pdu->Signature.SecuritySignature, "BSRSPYL", 8); > > + memcpy(cifs_pdu->Signature.SecuritySignature, "BSRSPYL", 8); > > return rc; > > } > > > > > Looks good to me. > > Reviewed-by: Suresh Jayaraman <[email protected]> > > Any reason why some of the strncpy/strncmp cases were only picked up > among the rest? May be depending on how hot the code path is? > Simply because that's where I noticed them. If you see other places that could benefit, then it's probably reasonable to patch them too. -- Jeff Layton <[email protected]> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
