Scott Cheloha <scottchel...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 03:09:05PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > + * Use memmove(3) instead of memcpy(3), just in case key > > + * partially overlaps with the end of the array. > > > > It isn't a "just in case", as in a possibility. > > ? > > > It is gauranteed this condition will happen. > > I don't follow you. I would expect this to basically never happen. > It's user error. We're well outside of "defined behavior" here, I'm > just trying to make lsearch(3) do the best thing in a bad situation.
Does the specification of this function say that a caller CANNOT lay out the objects that way? If it doesn't, they eventually will. > Like, I can write a program to demonstrate the problem, but this is > not something you would ever do intentionally. That is backwards again. Someone else will. By accident, even. > + > + /* > + * Use memmove(3) to ensure the key is copied cleanly into the > + * array, even if the key overlaps with the end of the array. > + */ > + memmove((void *)end, key, width); > return((void *)end); > } Yes that is better, it avoids calling the situation abstract or vague.
