[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] ethdev: use strlcpy instead of snprintf on initialization

Andrew Rybchenko arybchenko at solarflare.com
Mon Mar 4 10:11:20 CET 2019


On 3/1/19 9:42 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 10:48:58 +0300
> Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko at solarflare.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/1/19 1:47 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>> Don't need to use snprintf for simple name copy.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>
>>> ---
>>>    lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c | 2 +-
>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>>> index 95889ed206db..8bd54dcf58c1 100644
>>> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>>> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>>> @@ -459,7 +459,7 @@ rte_eth_dev_allocate(const char *name)
>>>    	}
>>>    
>>>    	eth_dev = eth_dev_get(port_id);
>>> -	snprintf(eth_dev->data->name, sizeof(eth_dev->data->name), "%s", name);
>>> +	strlcpy(eth_dev->data->name, name, RTE_ETH_NAME_MAX_LEN);
>> Why is sizeof() substituted with RTE_ETH_NAME_MAX_LEN?
> Same thing, I just wanted to make the length obvious to the reader.
>
>> I thought that sizeof() is the first choice in such cases since it is a
>> bit more
>> safer vs possible changes in the code.
>>
>> BTW, wouldn't it be more friendly to check name length on entry and
>> reject if it is too long? (and same for rte_eth_dev_create())
> It is impossible for name to long since since both structures are the same.

Which structures? name is an input parameter of the function.



More information about the dev mailing list