On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 11:39:37PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> See the strncat(3) Linux manual page for details about why strncat(3)
> is actively harmful.
Is there a a known instance of strncpy() causing a problem in the groff
source?
I get it, you are fixing a possible problem and there m
Hi Steffen,
On 12/6/22 00:11, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
Alejandro Colomar wrote in
<20221205223936.8290-1-...@kernel.org>:
...
|--- a/src/roff/troff/input.cpp
|+++ b/src/roff/troff/input.cpp
|@@ -7892,7 +7892,7 @@ void do_macro_source(bool quietly)
|MACRO_POSTFIX, sizeof(MACRO_POST
Alejandro Colomar wrote in
<20221205223936.8290-1-...@kernel.org>:
...
|--- a/src/roff/troff/input.cpp
|+++ b/src/roff/troff/input.cpp
|@@ -7892,7 +7892,7 @@ void do_macro_source(bool quietly)
|MACRO_POSTFIX, sizeof(MACRO_POSTFIX) - 1) == 0) {
|char *s = new char[fnlen + sizeof(MACRO
On 12/5/22 23:54, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
On 12/5/22 23:39, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
See the strncat(3) Linux manual page for details about why strncat(3)
is actively harmful.
Still, we don't test for truncation, which is a sign that strlcpy(3)
(or strncpy(3)) before it were incorrectly us
On 12/5/22 23:39, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
See the strncat(3) Linux manual page for details about why strncat(3)
is actively harmful.
Still, we don't test for truncation, which is a sign that strlcpy(3)
(or strncpy(3)) before it were incorrectly used, but that should be
addressed in a separate
See the strncat(3) Linux manual page for details about why strncat(3)
is actively harmful.
Still, we don't test for truncation, which is a sign that strlcpy(3)
(or strncpy(3)) before it were incorrectly used, but that should be
addressed in a separate patch. Of course, strncpy(3) wasn't tested
fo
Hi Branden,
You probably have seen my radical changes regarding string copy functions.
I've seen that groff uses strncpy(3) in a few places, and strncat(3) in one:
$ grep -rn strncpy src/
src/libs/libdriver/input.cpp:1038: strncpy((char *)current_filename, (char
*)fname, len);
src/libs/libdr
Hi Branden,
On 12/5/22 15:06, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
[...]
You're welcome, but I think we might have talked past each other below.
Sure, I try to do it consistently. If I Cc you is a "just read it if
you want, not forced, maybe you're busy and someone else on groff@
picks it up". :)
W
Hi Alex,
At 2022-12-05T13:35:42+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> On 12/5/22 09:15, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > [[The fix]] would be something like this:
> >
> > -3: # 3 C S c s 3: ! + 5 ? I S ] g q {\n"
> > +3: # 3 C S c s 3: !\& + 5 ?\& I S ] g q {\n"
> > -6: & 6
Hi Branden!
On 12/5/22 09:15, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
Hi Alex & Helge,
[...]
It would be something like this:
-3: # 3 C S c s 3: ! + 5 ? I S ] g q {\n"
+3: # 3 C S c s 3: !\& + 5 ?\& I S ] g q {\n"
-6: & 6 F V f v 6: $ . 8 B L V \\` j t \\(ti\
Hi Alex & Helge,
At 2022-12-04T13:53:41+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> On 12/4/22 10:07, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> > Without further ado, the following was found:
[...]
> > " 2 3 4 5 6 7 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120\n"
> > " - -\n"
> >
11 matches
Mail list logo
