On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 05:36:31PM +0200, Martin Wilck wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-07-16 at 17:18 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:15:57PM +0200, mwilck@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Also remove the redundant local variables. It's not necessary to
> > > make "restrict" work, but it makes the intention more clear.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > libmultipath/util.c | 28 ++++++++++++----------------
> > > libmultipath/util.h | 4 ++--
> > > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/libmultipath/util.c b/libmultipath/util.c
> > > index 957fb97..f965094 100644
> > > --- a/libmultipath/util.c
> > > +++ b/libmultipath/util.c
> > >
> > > -size_t strlcat(char *dst, const char *src, size_t size)
> > > +size_t strlcat(char * restrict dst, const char * restrict src,
> > > size_t size)
> > > {
> > > size_t bytes = 0;
> > > - char *q = dst;
> > > - const char *p = src;
> > > char ch;
> > >
> > > - while (bytes < size && *q) {
> > > - q++;
> > > + while (bytes < size && *dst) {
> > > + dst++;
> > > bytes++;
> > > }
> > > if (bytes == size)
> >
> > this should return the strlen(dst) + strlen(src). It wouldn't in the
> > admittedly weird case where size isn't large enough to fit dst.
>
> Are you sure?
>
Nope. But I might be right.
> https://linux.die.net/man/3/strlcat
>
> "Note, however, that if strlcat() traverses size characters without
> finding a NUL, the length of the string is considered to be size and
> the destination string will not be NUL-terminated (since there was no
> space for the NUL)."
>
> The way I understand this is that the current code is actually correct
> in returning bytes + strlen(src).
>
> This is also consistent with what I see elsewhere
>
> https://github.com/ffainelli/uClibc/blob/master/libc/string/strlcat.c
This returns bytes + strlen(src) like you think is correct
> https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/master/crypto/heimdal/lib/roken/strlcat.c
This returns strlen(dst) + strlen(src) like I think is correct
I would argue that the important lines from https://linux.die.net/man/3/strlcat
are
"The strlcpy() and strlcat() functions return the total length of the
string they tried to create."
and
"For strlcat() that means the initial length of dst plus the length of
src."
The alternative to strlen(dst) + strlen(src) (which follows the snprintf
convention, and I think makes the most sense) seems to be "the length of
the string is considered to be size" which I assume means it should
return bytes. According to the man page, the reason for this is to keep
"strlcat() from running off the end of a string". I admit to being kinda
confused about this. I suppose if you assume that you can't trust the
strings enough to run strlen() this makes sense. But if you can't trust
strlen(dst), you shouldn't be able to trust strlen(src) either, which
means that strlcat() should never return more than bytes, and that is
clearly at odds with other statements in the man page.
In my mind, there is value in returning strlen(dst) + strlen(src), since
that is the size needed to hold the strings. Returning bytes means you can
write strlcat to avoid trusting strlen(). bytes + strlen(src) is a
meaningless value, and getting that value doesn't protect you against
src not being null terminated.
Clearly this is a nitpicky corner case, and I don't think we need
protection against src not being null terminated, so I'm not strongly
against bytes + strlen(src), if you prefer that.
-Ben
> Regards
> Martin
>
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
