James Yonan wrote: > David, > > A couple issues with the patch: > > * sscanf usage doesn't check for buffer overflow.
See below. > * You use gw_if_name in some places and gw_ifname in other > places. To > eliminate confusion it would be best to use a consistent form. Done. > Also, to reiterate, try submitting the patch as an attachment to deal > with email client munging issues. OK. About the sscanf: (copied from my earlier message to Alon) > 3. Please don't use scanf this way as it may overflow the buffer. > Use %##s and check that overflow is avoided. I use "%32s\t" now. How do I check for overflow? sscanf always returns 1. Besides, the linux kernel headers declare 32 as maximum iface name length. Even in case of overflow, what shoudl I do ? Return false ? I think leaving it as is is good for 99,999% of cases and in the rest (in case of overflow), either a gateway IP address is present, so no problem, or the route add command will fail (or use the wrong device). Not perfect, but what is in these days ? ;-) Oh, my patch removes spaces at the end of some lines. My editor did this automatically. Is that a problem ? I thought to remove it from the patch, but then the next guy to edit it will have the same problem. The patch is attached. Regards, David
newest.patch
Description: newest.patch
