Re: [RFC 0/3] eliminate potential race in string() (was: [PATCH] string: Improve the generic strlcpy() implementation)

2015-10-10 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09 2015, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > > > It's hard not to agree with the overall "let's make it more robust if it > > can be done sanely+cheaply+cleanly". I was a bit skeptical about whether > > those three requirements could be met, since we'd have to do

Re: [RFC 0/3] eliminate potential race in string() (was: [PATCH] string: Improve the generic strlcpy() implementation)

2015-10-10 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09 2015, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > > > It's hard not to agree with the overall "let's make it more robust if it > > can be done sanely+cheaply+cleanly". I was a bit skeptical about whether > > those

[RFC 0/3] eliminate potential race in string() (was: [PATCH] string: Improve the generic strlcpy() implementation)

2015-10-09 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
On Fri, Oct 09 2015, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > It's hard not to agree with the overall "let's make it more robust if it > can be done sanely+cheaply+cleanly". I was a bit skeptical about whether > those three requirements could be met, since we'd have to do > byte-by-byte traversal of the

[RFC 0/3] eliminate potential race in string() (was: [PATCH] string: Improve the generic strlcpy() implementation)

2015-10-09 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
On Fri, Oct 09 2015, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > It's hard not to agree with the overall "let's make it more robust if it > can be done sanely+cheaply+cleanly". I was a bit skeptical about whether > those three requirements could be met, since we'd have to do >