On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 09:08:14AM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > Hi Kees, > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 10:19:39PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 10:58:56AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > struct seq_buf s; > > > seq_buf_init(&s, buf, szie); > > > > And because some folks didn't like this "declaration that requires a > > function call", we even added: > > > > DECLARE_SEQ_BUF(s, 32); > > > > to do it in 1 line. :P > > > > I would love to see more string handling replaced with seq_buf. > > The thing is, it's not as easy as the fixes I'm proposing, and > sprintf_end() solves a lot of UB in a minimal diff that you can dumbly > apply.
Note that I'm not arguing against your idea -- I just think it's not going to be likely to end up in Linux soon given Linus's objections. My perspective is mainly one of pragmatic damage control: what *can* we do in Linux that would make things better? Currently, seq_buf is better than raw C strings... -- Kees Cook
