[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150828181141.6d974130@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 18:11:41 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>, He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Brendan Gregg <brendan.d.gregg@...il.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/2] lib: introduce strncpy_from_unsafe()
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 15:08:35 -0700
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com> wrote:
> On 8/28/15 2:48 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >> * On success, returns the length of the string (not including the trailing
> >> >+ * NUL).
> > I think it includes the NUL.
>
> oops. yes. that was a copy paste from strncpy_from_user comment.
> trace_kprobe usage wants NUL to be counted, so I intended to have it
> counted, but that brings the question what should be the semantics.
> Should it be similar to strncpy_from_user (not counting NUL) or
> similar to strlen_user (counts NUL) ?
> imo counting NUL makes a little bit more sense, since when a user says
> strncpy_from_unsafe(..., ..., 32)
> and it returns 32 as the whole buffer was filled, it looks cleaner.
> Thoughts?
>
I personally prefer counting the NUL. I've had issues in the past with
the strncpy_from_user() not counting it :-p
-- Steve
--
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