Re: strncpy is not a safe version of strcpy

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:38:39AM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> 
> > I share your (Kevin's) discomfort with our use of strlcpy().  I wouldn't
> > mind
> > someone replacing most strlcpy()/snprintf() calls with calls to wrappers
> > that
> > ereport(ERROR) on truncation.  Though as reliability problems go, this one
> > has
> > been minor.
> >
> >
> Or maybe it would be better to just remove the restriction and just palloc
> something of the correct size?
> Although, that sounds like a much larger patch. I'd vote that the strlcpy
> should be used in the meantime.

I agree that, in principle, dynamic allocation might be better still.  I also
agree that it would impose more code churn, for an awfully-narrow benefit.

Barring objections, I will commit your latest patch with some comments about
why truncation is harmless for those two particular calls.

-- 
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB                                 http://www.enterprisedb.com