[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: using "(void)" casts to purposefully ignore return values
Quoting Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> (Thu, 25 Aug 2011
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 09:54:05AM +0930, Brett Lymn wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 04:11:52PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Nope, someone has not read the strlcat man page closely enough.
> > > > If you screw up in just the right way strlcat WILL NOT null
> > > > terminate a string.
> > >
> > > You are mixing up strncat and strlcat. The former doesn't
> > > NUL-terminate, the latter does explicitly in all but one case
> > > (n==0).
> > >
> > I repeat. Someone has not read the strlcat man page properly.
> > Seriously. The belief that strlcat will always nul terminate is
> > wrong.
> strlcat preserves NUL-termination in all cases. It is not intended for
> truncation of input. This is contrary to strncat, which is just as
> insane as strncpy in that regard.
I know nothing about this, but just to stop the discussion from
devolving into a flame war, I'll point out that the bit of strlcat(3)
being referred to is probably this one:
Note however, that if strlcat() traverses size characters without
finding a NUL, the length of the string is considered to be size and
the destination string will not be NUL-terminated (since there was
no space for the NUL). This keeps strlcat() from running off the
end of a string. In practice this should not happen (as it means
that either size is incorrect or that dst is not a proper ``C''
string). The check exists to pre- vent potential security problems
in incorrect code.
Ian D. Leroux
Main Index |
Thread Index |