Re: [PATCH] Staging: octeon: Avoid several usecases of strcpy

[Sandro Volery]

On 11 Sep 2019, at 11:17, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> ïOn Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:04:38AM +0200, Sandro Volery wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>> On 11 Sep 2019, at 10:52, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ïOn Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 08:23:59AM +0200, Sandro Volery wrote:
>>>> strcpy was used multiple times in strcpy to write into dev->name.
>>>> I replaced them with strscpy.
>>>> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sandro Volery <sandro@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c | 16 ++++++++--------
>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>> 
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
>>>> index 8889494adf1f..cf8e9a23ebf9 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet.c
>>>> @@ -784,7 +784,7 @@ static int cvm_oct_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>           priv->imode = CVMX_HELPER_INTERFACE_MODE_DISABLED;
>>>>           priv->port = CVMX_PIP_NUM_INPUT_PORTS;
>>>>           priv->queue = -1;
>>>> -            strcpy(dev->name, "pow%d");
>>>> +            strscpy(dev->name, "pow%d", sizeof(dev->name));
>>> 
>>> Is there a program which is generating a warning for this code?  We know
>>> that "pow%d" is 6 characters and static analysis tools can understand
>>> this code fine so we know it's safe.
>> 
>> Well I was confused too but checkpatch complained about 
>> it so I figured I'd clean it up quick
> 
> Ah.  It's a new checkpatch warning.  I don't care in that case.  I'm
> fine with replacing all of these in that case.

Alright thanks. Can you review this?

Thanks,
Sandro V