Hi, On 02/09/2015 12:57 PM, Liang, Cunming wrote: >>> @@ -469,7 +469,7 @@ eal_parse_lcores(const char *lcores) >>> /* Remove all blank characters ahead and after */ >>> while (isblank(*lcores)) >>> lcores++; >>> - i = strnlen(lcores, sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX)); >>> + i = strnlen(lcores, PATH_MAX); >>> while ((i > 0) && isblank(lcores[i - 1])) >>> i--; >>> >>> >> >> I think PATH_MAX is not equivalent to _SC_ARG_MAX. >> >> But the main question is: why do we need to use strnlen() here instead >> of strlen? We can expect that argv[] pointers are always nul-terminated. >> Replacing them by strlen() would probably also solve the icc issue. > [LCM] You're right, here strlen() also solve icc issue and no risk for argv[]. > But follows practice suggestion, keeping using those with 'n' function in > DPDK is not bad. > There's additional two reason to keep strnlen and PATH_MAX. > 1. PATH_MAX is defined as 4096 which is enough as our input. It doesn't > matter to be _SC_ARG_MAX or not.
PATH_MAX is 4096 but it's not related to the maximum argument length. > 2. strnlen and PATH_MAX already used in eal_parse_coremask, to keep the style > consistent in '-l' and '--lcores'. I don't think it's a valid argument. What is the problem of using strlen()? It looks it solves all the issues. Using strlen on valid strings is not a security issue. Regards, Olivier
