Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:12:51 -0800 | From | Casey Schaufler <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/4] security/selinux: decrement sizeof size in strncmp |
| |
Joe Perches wrote: > On Sat, 2009-11-14 at 03:44 +0000, David Wagner wrote: > >> I personally don't find >> strncmp(foo, "constant", sizeof("constant")) // first snippet >> to be more readable, auditable, or obviously correct than >> strcmp(foo, "constant"). // second snippet >> Is there a technical basis for arguing that the first >> snippet is better than the second snippet? >> > > I don't think there is. >
And you're exactly correct. Now please go convince all the whingers who think that even though because their tool found a "bad" thing there is nothing to worry about. But that's beside the point. There really is no point here. This whole discussion is around a gratuitous change that has no net effect on the behavior of the system. Unless you are talking about the original change proposal, which would have broken certain cases.
I am advocating that the code be left as is. It works fine (for what it is intended to do, of course) and the "corrected" change is just plain unnecessary. It is no clearer and no less clear than the original. Leave it alone unless there is a good reason to change it. What, are y'all getting paid by the patch or something?
> -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > > >
| |