[PATCH] staging: lustre: lustre: ptlrpc: nrs.c: Cleaning up missing null-terminate after strncpy call

[PATCH] staging: lustre: lustre: ptlrpc: nrs.c: Cleaning up missing null-terminate after strncpy call

[Rickard Strandqvist]

Added a guaranteed null-terminate after call to strncpy.

Signed-off-by: Rickard Strandqvist <rickard_strandqvist@spectrumdigital.se>
---
 drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/nrs.c |    1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/nrs.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/nrs.c
index 12151aa..a914447 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/nrs.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/nrs.c
@@ -1162,6 +1162,7 @@ int ptlrpc_nrs_policy_register(struct ptlrpc_nrs_pol_conf *conf)
 		GOTO(fail, rc = -ENOMEM);
 
 	strncpy(desc->pd_name, conf->nc_name, NRS_POL_NAME_MAX);
+	desc->pd_name[NRS_POL_NAME_MAX - 1] = '\0';
 	desc->pd_ops		 = conf->nc_ops;
 	desc->pd_compat		 = conf->nc_compat;
 	desc->pd_compat_svc_name = conf->nc_compat_svc_name;
-- 
1.7.10.4

Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: lustre: ptlrpc: nrs.c: Cleaning up missing null-terminate after strncpy call

[Dan Carpenter]

On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 01:49:12AM +0200, Rickard Strandqvist wrote:
> Added a guaranteed null-terminate after call to strncpy.

No.  This is a problem in the static checker and not in the code.

Look at the start of the function.  This stuff should be obvious for the
static checker.

regards,
dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: lustre: ptlrpc: nrs.c: Cleaning up missing null-terminate after strncpy call

[Rickard Strandqvist]

2014-08-11 12:58 GMT+02:00 Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>:
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 01:49:12AM +0200, Rickard Strandqvist wrote:
>> Added a guaranteed null-terminate after call to strncpy.
>
> No.  This is a problem in the static checker and not in the code.
>
> Look at the start of the function.  This stuff should be obvious for the
> static checker.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>

Hi Dan

Okay, no, it was me who missed it, not cppcheck.

Ensuring that from string will fit was an unusual solution.
If I see code where an effort is made to ensure that no more than x
characters copied I react to it.
But it is zeroing of the string you were looking for then. Ok sorry :-(

Kind regards
Rickard Strandqvist