[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20221121170754.b5f7f57960596a146832d189@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 17:07:54 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: <yang.yang29@....com.cn>
Cc: <wuchi.zero@...il.com>, <axboe@...nel.dk>,
<colin.i.king@...il.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<xu.panda@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] relay: use strscpy() is more robust and
safer
On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 08:53:25 +0800 (CST) <yang.yang29@....com.cn> wrote:
> From: Xu Panda <xu.panda@....com.cn>
>
> The implementation of strscpy() is more robust and safer.
> That's now the recommended way to copy NUL terminated strings.
I really see no benefit to this switch in this situation. What am I
missing?
But I guess this:
hp2:/usr/src/linux-6.1-rc4> grep -r strlcpy . | wc
400 1913 34402
hp2:/usr/src/linux-6.1-rc4> grep -r strscpy . | wc
2824 11990 266471
is a good enough reason for applying.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists