On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 12:01 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote: > This patch series addresses limitations in strncpy() and strlcpy(); > both the old APIs are unpleasant, as Linus nicely summarized here > a couple of days ago: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/28/570 > > and of course as other folks (Greg K-H and Linus again) said last year: > > https://plus.google.com/+gregkroahhartman/posts/1amLbuhWbh5 > > The proposed new API (strscpy(), for "s"afe string copy) has an > easy-to-use API for detecting buffer overflow, avoids unsafe truncation > by default, and isn't subject to thread-safety attacks like the current > strlcpy implementation. See patch 2/3 for more on why strscpy() is a > good thing.
+1 on the concept. > To make strscpy() work more efficiently I did the minimum tweaking > necessary to allow <asm/word-at-a-time.h> to work on all architectures, > though of course individual maintainers can still make their versions > more efficient as needed. > > It's likely not necessary for per-architecture implementations of > strscpy() to be written, but I stuck with the standard __HAVE_ARCH_XXX > model just for consistency with the rest of <linux/string.h>. > > I tested the implementation with a simple user-space harness, so I > believe it is correct for the corner cases I could think of. In > particular I pairwise-tested all the unaligned values of source and > dest, and tested the restriction on src page-crossing at all > unaligned offsets approaching the page boundary. Can you please put that in tools/testing/selftests and merge it as part of the series? That way I can run the tests and be confident it works on powerpc. cheers -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
