From: Joe Perches
Date: Tue Aug 20 2019 - 20:58:33 EST
On Tue, 2019-08-20 at 17:43 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:20 PM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Umm, btw: have you actually looked at stracpy?
> Yes, Joe, I have.
> What part of "there are now so many of them that no human being can
> keep track of them" didn't you see as a problem?
Well, the actual post-conversion uses to stracpy make the old ones
(strcpy/strlcpy/strncpy) exceptional uses that can be analyzed
quite a bit more easily.
btw: I really don't care what any convenience macro is named.
Most all of the strlcpy and strscpy uses actually _do_ copy to
a char array and strscpy is a simple interface that is somewhat
> How many broken string functions are we going to do, adding yet
> another one when you notice that the _last_ one wasn't great?
> We never seem to remove the broken ones. We just add yet another one,
> and have a never-ending jumble of random letters.
<shrug> Intermediate problems.
> I would seriously suggest doing something like
> copy_string( dst, dstsize, src, srcsize, FLAGS );
> where FLAGS migth be "pad" or whatever. Make it return the size of the
> resulting string, because while it can be convenient to pass 'dst" on,
> it's not useful.
That's simply not convenient for pointers.
Auditing the kernel for those unsized uses is a
large scope problem. Even anything that uses
PAGE_SIZE sized allocations does sprintf
instead of snprintf. Any show_<foo> for instance.
> And then maybe just add the helper macro that turns an array into a
> "pointer, size" combination, rather than yet another letter jumble.
Good luck with that when an unsized char pointer is the thing
passed to a function.
There are _way_ too many of those already in the kernel.
Simple strcpy is already used > 2000 times.