From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Feb 11 23:00:17 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA10021
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 23:00:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from panda.hilink.com.au (panda.hilink.com.au [203.2.144.5])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA10015
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 23:00:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from danny@localhost) by panda.hilink.com.au (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA07054; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:04:59 +1100 (EST)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:04:59 +1100 (EST)
From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" <danny@panda.hilink.com.au>
To: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: strlen() question
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970212175317.427s-100000@panda.hilink.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


Below is the code for strlen() from libc.  It is extremely simple, and
fast. Is it really safe to assume that strlen() will never exceed process
memory bounds before striking a '\0'?  Or should there be a strnlen()
function in libc for checking the length of suspicious strings? 

Danny

size_t
strlen(str)
	const char *str;
{
	register const char *s;

	for (s = str; *s; ++s);
	return(s - str);
}