On Fri, 8 Apr 2016, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:34 PM, <mar...@omnibond.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Andy Shevchenko > >> <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Martin Brandenburg > >> > <mar...@omnibond.com> wrote: > >> >> From: Martin Brandenburg <mar...@omnibond.com> > >> >> > >> >> Almost everywhere we use strncpy we should use strlcpy. This affects > >> >> path names (d_name mostly), symlink targets, and server names. > >> >> > >> >> Leave debugfs code as is for now, though it could use a review as well. > >> >> > >> > > >> > |Why not strscpy() as most robust one? > > > > Mostly because I hadn't heard about strscpy. > > It was nice story how he applied it to the tree.
Just read it.. > > >> It looks like strscpy went in last October... there are > >> no users of it yet. I was just about to send in a pull request > >> that includes Martin's strncpy->strlcpy patch when I saw > >> Andy's comment. > >> > >> Linus said when he pulled strscpy: > > > After looking over strscpy I don't see a compelling > > reason not to go ahead and use it while we're fixing up > > this code. > > I recommend to mention that this is a fix explicitly in the commit > message, currently it sounds like a meaningless patch of trainee. I've decided to scrap most of this, but one change is important. Most of it is a no-op because the client-core buffer is larger than NAME_MAX and there is always room. Replying with patch in a minute. Thanks for the review! Mike, I think we can delay this one for later so we can look at the debugfs and superblock code in more detail. -- Martin > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko >
