lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] lib/string.c: implement stpcpy
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 1:59 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> strcpy() is not a bad API for the cases when you know what you are
> doing. A problem that most of the developers do not know what they are
> doing.
> No need to split everything to bad and good by its name or semantics,
> each API has its own pros and cons and programmers must use their
> brains.

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 1:17 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Seems to me that this is a fixation on an abstract problem that never
> exists (of course, if a developer has brains to think).

Of course, no "True Scotsman" would accidentally misuse C string.h API!
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

(I will note the irony of my off by one in my v1 implementation of
stpcpy. I've also missed strncpy zeroing the rest of a destination
buffer before. I might not be a "True Scotsman.")

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 11:30 AM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> I equate "unsafe" or "fragile" with "bad". There's no reason to use our
> brains for remembering what's safe or not when we can just remove unsafe
> things from the available APIs, and/or lean on the compiler to help
> (e.g. CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE).

Having seatbelts is great (ie. fortify source), but is no substitute
for driving carefully (having proper APIs that help me not shoot my
foot off). I think it's nice to have *both*, but if I drove solely
relying on my seatbelts, we might all be in trouble. Not disagreeing
with you, Kees.
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-01 01:22    [W:0.142 / U:0.516 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site