On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 10:29:50PM +0530, Suchit K wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 at 22:19, Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 7/17/25 4:59 AM, Suchit Karunakaran wrote: > > > Replace the unsafe strcpy() call with memcpy() when copying the path > > > into the bpf_object structure. Since the memory is pre-allocated to > > > exactly strlen(path) + 1 bytes and the length is already known, memcpy() > > > is safer than strcpy(). > > > > I don't understand in this particular context why strcpy() > > is less safer than memcpy(). Both of them will achieve the > > exactly same goal. > > > > Sorry, I meant that strcpy() is generally considered unsafe because it > doesn't perform bounds checking. Its use is deprecated and > discouraged, as noted in Documentation/process/deprecated.rst. I made > this change with that in mind, although I'm not entirely certain > whether it's actually unsafe in this specific context. > Your change also did not do any bounds checking at all, so how is this now safer? confused, greg k-h
