[PATCH] rtems-fdt / shell - Fix string truncation warning
chrisj at rtems.org
Fri Oct 16 23:45:53 UTC 2020
On 17/10/20 10:37 am, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 17/10/20 3:16 am, Frank Kühndel wrote:
>> Hello Chris,
>> On 10/15/20 10:29 PM, Chris Johns wrote:
>>> On 16/10/20 7:24 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 2:13 PM Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org
>>>> <mailto:chrisj at rtems.org>> wrote:
>>>> On 15/10/20 10:27 pm, Frank Kuehndel wrote:
>>>> > From: Frank Kühndel <frank.kuehndel at embedded-brains.de
>>>> <mailto:frank.kuehndel at embedded-brains.de>>
>>>> > The compiler warning was:
>>>> > ../../../cpukit/libmisc/rtems-fdt/rtems-fdt.c:267:5: warning:
>>>> > 'strncpy' specified bound depends on the length of the source argument
>>>> > 267 | strncpy(path, name, namelen);
>>>> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>> > It turns out that the `strncpy()` nor the buffer `path` is needed when
>>>> > one uses `strncmp()` instead of `strcmp()`. This needs some change to
>>>> > the algorithm but has the advantage that `name` is never truncated
>>>> > to the size of the buffer `path`.
>>>> > Note:
>>>> > rtems-fdt.c, rtems-fdt-shell.c and cpukit/include/rtems/rtems-fdt.h
>>>> > seem to be dead code.
>>>> We cannot tell this is as a user may depend on it. With this command I know
>>>> users on Zynq platforms that use FDT to map PL logic to drivers. The command is
>>>> very much in use and is used as a PS to PL testing method.
>> This statement was not meant as an offense.
> Thank you. There was offence taken by the statement and the review process has
Sorry, the sentence should read: There was no offence taken ...
> resolved its presence. I think we should avoid subjective statement in commit
> message, they are fine in tickets and reviews where we can debt them.
>> I spent a lot of time trying
>> to figure out where and how this code was used - without result. With
>> this statement, I hoped to trigger a reaction by someone indicating that
>> he/she knows the code can be removed or that he/she knows the code is in
>> use. I am sorry that my text was not appropriate.
> This is understandable, the commands are hard in this respect. They are a grey
> area and this is understood and accepted and maybe we could do better here. I am
> happy to see a criteria established to remove commands so if one was proposed
> with an audit of the command that meet it and those that do not then we can see
> how we sit.
>> I will send a patch v2 without this text on Monday.
> Thanks. I have added onto my list adding the config setting for this command and
> documentation. I should have done this when I added the command and I will sort
> it out.
> devel mailing list
> devel at rtems.org
More information about the devel