On 5/19/2018 4:27 AM, René Scharfe wrote:
Am 19.05.2018 um 03:57 schrieb Jeff King:
These formatted integers should always fit into their
64-byte buffers. Let's use xsnprintf() to add an assertion
that this is the case, which makes auditing for other
unchecked snprintfs() easier.
How about t
René Scharfe writes:
> How about this instead?
>
> -- >8 --
> Subject: [PATCH] fsmonitor: use internal argv_array of struct child_process
>
> Avoid magic array sizes and indexes by constructing the fsmonitor
> command line using the embedded argv_array of the child_process. The
> resulting code
On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 10:27:46AM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:
> Am 19.05.2018 um 03:57 schrieb Jeff King:
> > These formatted integers should always fit into their
> > 64-byte buffers. Let's use xsnprintf() to add an assertion
> > that this is the case, which makes auditing for other
> > unchecked
Am 19.05.2018 um 03:57 schrieb Jeff King:
> These formatted integers should always fit into their
> 64-byte buffers. Let's use xsnprintf() to add an assertion
> that this is the case, which makes auditing for other
> unchecked snprintfs() easier.
How about this instead?
-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH]
These formatted integers should always fit into their
64-byte buffers. Let's use xsnprintf() to add an assertion
that this is the case, which makes auditing for other
unchecked snprintfs() easier.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King
---
fsmonitor.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
5 matches
Mail list logo