On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 14:59:16 -0700 Justin Stitt <[email protected]> wrote:
> So, assuming I haven't lost your faith, I can send a v2 along the lines of: Not yet ;-) > > 1) > strscpy(num_buf, str + s, len + 1); > > ... or > 2) > memcpy(num_buf, str + s, len); > num_buf[len] = 0; > > And if you're wondering about option 3: "Don't change anything because > the code works". I'd reiterate that I think it's important to replace > bad ambiguous APIs. There are many cases where folks use strncpy() as > a glorified memcpy because they want the padding behavior, or they use > it on non-null terminated destinations or tons of other "misuses". > Ambiguous code like that poses a real danger to the maintainability of > the codebase and opens threat vectors. I use it as a string memcpy, where it doesn't copy more than source. But I don't care about the padding. So option 2 is fine with me. -- Steve
