Hello Alex, I see there was a rather long mail thread that led to this patch. The patch definitely deserves a commit message. See also below. On 7/28/21 10:20 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > Reported-by: Jonny Grant <jg@xxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > man3/strlen.3 | 6 ++++++ > man3/wcslen.3 | 9 ++++++++- > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/man3/strlen.3 b/man3/strlen.3 > index dea4c1050..78783c446 100644 > --- a/man3/strlen.3 > +++ b/man3/strlen.3 > @@ -66,6 +66,12 @@ T} Thread safety MT-Safe > .sp 1 > .SH CONFORMING TO > POSIX.1-2001, POSIX.1-2008, C89, C99, C11, SVr4, 4.3BSD. > +.SH NOTES > +.SS strnlen(3) > +If the input buffer size is known, > +it is probably better to use > +.BR strnlen (3), > +which can prevent reading past the end of the array. I hesitate slightly about this. strlen() is in the C standard, but strnlen() is not. What do you think; do we need to care? Thanks, Michael > .SH SEE ALSO > .BR string (3), > .BR strnlen (3), > diff --git a/man3/wcslen.3 b/man3/wcslen.3 > index af3fcb9ca..fe1d6331b 100644 > --- a/man3/wcslen.3 > +++ b/man3/wcslen.3 > @@ -58,5 +58,12 @@ T} Thread safety MT-Safe > .sp 1 > .SH CONFORMING TO > POSIX.1-2001, POSIX.1-2008, C99. > +.SH NOTES > +.SS wcsnlen(3) > +If the input buffer size is known, > +it is probably better to use > +.BR wcsnlen (3), > +which can prevent reading past the end of the array. > .SH SEE ALSO > -.BR strlen (3) > +.BR strlen (3), > +.BR wcsnlen (3) > -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
