>Since I tried to keep the resemblance between strlen.c and strnlen.c clear,
>does the AT&T copyright notice stay in?
If you started working from the strlen.c file, I would think so as it
makes it a derived work...
>While I do have a copy of the most recent source downloaded (lots of changes
>since the last one I downloaded, like how the mapfiles are set up!), I don't
>have
>the space {, experience, patience, ...} to attempt a full build, nor a machine
>to
>trash by attempting to install it. I hope that isn't necessary.
Your sponsor should do a full build anyway. But you should certainly
attempt a full libc build.
Mapfiles simpler now.
>I did a little test program (not meant to fit into any sort of general test
>infrastructure)
>that gives strnlen() a workout, to test it with different ( <= max appropriate
>)
>values of maxlen, check for correct results under termination both by NUL
>character
>and by maxlen, etc. By mmap'ing two adjacent anonymous, private pages, with
>the 2nd having no privs, and the first read-only while strnlen() is called, it
>also
>checks that strnlen() does not look at memory beyond what it should and
>(although it should be obvious) does not write to what is supposed to be
>a read-only string. That is, the first arg to strnlen() is an arbitrary fairly
>short area at the end of the first of those two pages. If that test program
>were
>a bit more generalized, it might be appropriate for other functions that treat
>an area of memory as (your choice) read/write or read-only, and shouldn't run
>off
>the end. (It does indeed get a SEGV if one purposely messes up and runs into
>the 2nd page!)
>
>I saw Casper's post about mapfile-vers; would that, and the addition to
><string.h>,
>be preferred in the form of context diffs, or what?
Yes.
>How about an addition to usr/src/lib/libc/port/llib-lc ? If so, what
>visibility ?
None needed, really. "string.h" is included and that should cause
all functions to be added to the lint library.
In principle, most of the lint library stuff can/should be removed.
>I gather I'd have to fax in an SCA
>(http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/sun_contributor_agreement/
); I can do that.
>What other paperwork or other activity does there need to be on my part to get
>this done?
>
>That is, as long as I'm not in for much more than the above plus contributing
>to the
>justification for the ARC submission and suchlike minor stuff, I'm game for
>this.
>
>I suppose you saw the email from Dan Groves that said he put in CR 6478299,
>whatever that means.
Step 1 of the RFE process is creating one. (Change Request)
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
