On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 04:02:37PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 3:24 PM Tobin C. Harding <to...@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Current documentation uses 'overflow' to describe a situation where less
> > data is written to a buffer than buffer size not more. 'overflow' is
> > the wrong word here - since we don't typically say 'underflow' change
> > the whole sentence.
> >
> > Fix erroneous 'overflow' documentation for under filled buffer.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tobin C. Harding <to...@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > lib/string.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/string.c b/lib/string.c
> > index 38e4ca08e757..7f1d72db53c5 100644
> > --- a/lib/string.c
> > +++ b/lib/string.c
> > @@ -173,8 +173,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(strlcpy);
> > *
> > * Preferred to strncpy() since it always returns a valid string, and
> > * doesn't unnecessarily force the tail of the destination buffer to be
> > - * zeroed. If the zeroing is desired, it's likely cleaner to use strscpy()
> > - * with an overflow test, then just memset() the tail of the dest buffer.
> > + * zeroed. If the zeroing is desired, it's likely cleaner to use
> > strscpy(),
> > + * check the return size, then just memset() the tail of the dest buffer.
> > */
>
> I'd just fold this patch into the strscpy_zeroed() patch. No need for
> a kind of "no op" change here when we'll just change it again with a
> better advice ("use strscpy_zeroed()!")
Got it.
thanks,
Tobin.
