* Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2)
>
> Another problem is that strlcpy() will also happily do bad stuff if we pass
> it a negative size. Instead of that we will from now on print a (one time)
> warning and return safely.
Hm, so this check is buggy, as 'size_t' is unsigned - and for some reason GCC
didn't warn about the never-met comparison and the resulting unreachable dead
code here:
> + /* Overflow check: */
> + if (unlikely(dest_size < 0)) {
> + WARN_ONCE(1, "strlcpy(): dest_size < 0 underflow!");
> + return strlen(src);
> + }
which is annoying.
Would people object to something like:
> + /* Overflow check: */
> + if (unlikely((ssize_t)dest_size < 0)) {
> + WARN_ONCE(1, "strlcpy(): dest_size < 0 underflow!");
> + return strlen(src);
> + }
?
As I doubt it's legit to have larger than 2GB strings.
Also, I'm wondering why GCC didn't warn.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
