On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 01:38:50PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 10:07:28 -0700 > Kees Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Solve two ergonomic issues with struct seq_buf: > > "ergonomic"? Does it cause carpal tunnel? ;-) > > > > > 1) Too much boilerplate is required to initialize: > > > > struct seq_buf s; > > char buf[32]; > > > > seq_buf_init(s, buf, sizeof(buf)); > > > > Instead, we can build this directly on the stack. Provide > > DECLARE_SEQ_BUF() macro to do this: > > > > DECLARE_SEQ_BUF(s, 32); > > > > 2) %NUL termination is fragile and requires 2 steps to get a valid > > C String (and is a layering violation exposing the "internals" of > > seq_buf): > > > > seq_buf_terminate(s); > > do_something(s->buffer); > > > > Instead, we can just return s->buffer direction after terminating it > > in refactored seq_buf_terminate(), now known as seq_buf_cstr(): > > > > do_soemthing(seq_buf_cstr(s)); > > Do we really need to call it _cstr? Why not just have seq_buf_str() ? > > I mean, this is C, do we need to state that in the name too?
I'm fine either way. I did that just to make the distinction between our length-managed string of characters interface (seq_buf), and the %NUL-terminated string of characters (traditionally called "C String" in other languages). And it was still shorter than "seq_buf_terminate(s); s->buffer" ;) > BTW, I'm perfectly fine with this change, just the naming I have issues > with. Cool; thanks for looking at it! -- Kees Cook
