Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 09:38:17 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: snprintf() in the kernel Message-ID: <19981120093817.K467@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <199811190712.XAA23068@bubba.whistle.com>; from Archie Cobbs on Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 11:12:24PM -0800 References: <199811190712.XAA23068@bubba.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday, 18 November 1998 at 23:12:24 -0800, Archie Cobbs wrote: > I would like to do the following: > > 1. Add snprintf() to kern/subr_prf.c > > 2. Change all appropriate uses of sprintf() and/or strcat() > to use snprintf() instead. > > The main reason for doing this is not to add kernel bloat :-) but > rather to improve the reliability and maintainability of the kernel. > > In fact, the total byte count may even go down due to the several > instances in the code that are forced to do their own bounds checking > (the changes to subr_prf.c are minimal). > > Cases where it's "obvious" that the buffer can't overflow will > be left alone, for some conservative definition of "obvious". > > A typical example: > > ... > > I count 131 files that use sprintf() and 28 that use strcat(), so > this will touch a lot of files (but hopefully for the better). I'm very much in favour. The code I need to do bounds checking in vinum is some of the ugliest I've seen. > So.. does anyone have a huge problem with doing this before I jump in? > [ Anyone willing to review for me? ] I'll take a look. Are you going to implement %qd while you're at it? Greg -- See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19981120093817.K467>