> len = snprintf(fname, 99, "%s", buf);
> - fname[len-1] = '\0';
> I just deleted that "really, really" NUL-termination line because
> it was based on a misunderstanding of snprintf()'s postcondition.
Are you sure this code can be simple deleted? It does not only
terminate the string but delete
On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 19:05:58 +0100, Giel van Schijndel wrote:
> Especially since one very strange piece of code seems to be written in
> such a way that a NUL needs to be placed where a NUL is present already.
> The author probably meant to fill the last byte of the buffer with a NUL
> instead.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 11:34:43 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Giel van Schijndel wrote:
>> Especially since one very strange piece of code seems to be written in
>> such a way that a NUL needs to be placed where a NUL is present already.
>
> Actually, it's worse
On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Giel van Schijndel wrote:
> Especially since one very strange piece of code seems to be written in
> such a way that a NUL needs to be placed where a NUL is present already.
Actually, it's worse than that. This:
> len = snprintf(fname, 99, "%s", buf);
> -
Especially since one very strange piece of code seems to be written in
such a way that a NUL needs to be placed where a NUL is present already.
The author probably meant to fill the last byte of the buffer with a NUL
instead. But regardless of that: that isn't necessary since snprintf()
already gua
5 matches
Mail list logo
