On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 21:26:08 +0100 [email protected] wrote: > From: David Laight <[email protected]>
Commit message is required. Please explain why you think this patch is needed. AFAICT it copies data between two well formed IFNAMSIZ strings. > Signed-off-by: David Laight <[email protected]> > --- > This is one of a group of patches that remove potentially unbounded > strcpy() calls. > > They are mostly replaced by strscpy() or, when strlen() has just been > called, with memcpy() (usually including the '\0'). > > Calls with copy string literals into arrays are left unchanged. > They are safe and easily detected as such. > > The changes were made by getting the compiler to detect the calls and > then fixing the code by hand. > > Note that all the changes are only compile tested. > > Some Makefiles were changed to allow files to contain strcpy(). > As well as 'difficult to fix' files, this included 'show' functions > as they really need to use sysfs_emit() or seq_printf(). > > All the patches are being sent individually to avoid very long cc lists. > Apologies for the terse commit messages and likely unexpected tags. > (There are about 100 patches in total.) > > drivers/net/bonding/bond_options.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_options.c > b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_options.c > index 7380cc4ee75a..c57b7d6af043 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_options.c > +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_options.c > @@ -1525,7 +1525,7 @@ static int bond_option_primary_set(struct bonding *bond, > if (strncmp(slave->dev->name, primary, IFNAMSIZ) == 0) { > slave_dbg(bond->dev, slave->dev, "Setting as primary > slave\n"); > rcu_assign_pointer(bond->primary_slave, slave); > - strcpy(bond->params.primary, slave->dev->name); > + strscpy(bond->params.primary, slave->dev->name); > bond->force_primary = true; > bond_select_active_slave(bond); > goto out; -- pw-bot: cr
