[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120307184455.GA13565@elliptictech.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:44:55 -0500
From: Nick Bowler <nbowler@...iptictech.com>
To: Peter Seebach <peter.seebach@...driver.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>, paulus@...ba.org,
peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...e.hu, dsahern@...il.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com,
emunson@...bm.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: Incorrect use of snprintf results in SEGV
On 2012-03-06 19:29 -0600, Peter Seebach wrote:
> To frame it another way: Imagine an alternative function, called
> slenprintf(), which is just like snprintf except that it returns the
> number of bytes written instead of the number it would have liked to
> write in the event that the buffer isn't big enough. And also
> vslenprintf(), analogous to vsnprintf().
>
> Now consider what happens if you have one and want the semantics of the
> other:
[...]
> size_t
> mysnprintf(char *buffer, size_t len, char *fmt, ...) {
> size_t ret;
> va_list ap;
> va_start(ap, fmt)
> ret = vslenprintf(buffer, len, fmt, ap);
> /* now what? */
To answer the question, one "solution" here is to run in a loop
allocating larger and larger buffers until ret is strictly less
than len, then (for this function) free the allocated buffer.
There are a couple functions in POSIX that work this way (*cough*
readlink *cough*), and it's *ugly*.
Cheers,
--
Nick Bowler, Elliptic Technologies (http://www.elliptictech.com/)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists