Re: [PATCH v3] lib/string.c: implement stpcpy

[Nick Desaulniers]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 1:59 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> strcpy() is not a bad API for the cases when you know what you are
> doing. A problem that most of the developers do not know what they are
> doing.
> No need to split everything to bad and good by its name or semantics,
> each API has its own pros and cons and programmers must use their
> brains.

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 1:17 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Seems to me that this is a fixation on an abstract problem that never
> exists (of course, if a developer has brains to think).

Of course, no "True Scotsman" would accidentally misuse C string.h API!
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

(I will note the irony of my off by one in my v1 implementation of
stpcpy. I've also missed strncpy zeroing the rest of a destination
buffer before.  I might not be a "True Scotsman.")

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 11:30 AM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I equate "unsafe" or "fragile" with "bad". There's no reason to use our
> brains for remembering what's safe or not when we can just remove unsafe
> things from the available APIs, and/or lean on the compiler to help
> (e.g. CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE).

Having seatbelts is great (ie. fortify source), but is no substitute
for driving carefully (having proper APIs that help me not shoot my
foot off).  I think it's nice to have *both*, but if I drove solely
relying on my seatbelts, we might all be in trouble.  Not disagreeing
with you, Kees.
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers