Thanks for proving Bernstein right [LWN.net]

Thanks for proving Bernstein right

Posted Nov 4, 2007 19:15 UTC (Sun) by i3839 (guest, #31386)
In reply to: Thanks for proving Bernstein right by man_ls
Parent article: Daniel Bernstein: ten years of qmail security

Well, assuming we're talking about open source here, it's more a distro's choice. But
programmers knowing that their code is security critical and don't trust it enough should
indeed enable a few useful obscure compiler flags.

Oops, I gave the wrong example, I meant strncpy instead of strncat. The latter is indeed safe.

to post comments

Thanks for proving Bernstein right

Posted Nov 5, 2007 3:59 UTC (Mon) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link] (6 responses)

Um, what's wrong with strncpy?

strncpy()

Posted Nov 5, 2007 5:35 UTC (Mon) by Ross (guest, #4065) [Link] (2 responses)

It fails to terminate the string in some cases, so you end up having to either make sure the
buffer is always bigger than the string (in which case you could use strcpy), or manually
terminate the buffer.

It's such a simple function, but it is still a horrible design.

strncpy()

Posted Nov 5, 2007 15:32 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (1 responses)

It's an excellent design for what it was meant for: filling in ancient 
Unix directory entries, which had exactly that format (14 byte max, 
null-terminated if shorter than that).

The mistake was putting it in the C library where people might be tempted 
to use it for other purposes. (See also that horrible pre-stdio function 
gets(), which I see no uses of other than wrapping in things like libssp, 
but which still cna never be removed. At least it's hardly used anymore 
thanks to the warning you get whenever you use it: but strncpy() is used 
too much to warn about, and there's no decent replacement in libc, 
although writing one is a matter of five minutes' work.)

strncpy()

Posted Nov 8, 2007 6:31 UTC (Thu) by ncm (guest, #165) [Link]

snprintf works well enough.

Thanks for proving Bernstein right

Posted Nov 5, 2007 10:47 UTC (Mon) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (2 responses)

Use strlcpy() instead.

Thanks for proving Bernstein right

Posted Nov 8, 2007 6:35 UTC (Thu) by ncm (guest, #165) [Link] (1 responses)

strlcpy is not in POSIX and never will be.  It doesn't actually do what any sane person would
want, unless you don't really care what ends up in the destination string.  But if you don't
care, why call it at all?

Thanks for proving Bernstein right

Posted Nov 11, 2007 11:30 UTC (Sun) by renox (guest, #23785) [Link]

>strlcpy is not in POSIX and never will be.

So what? There are enough dumb spec in POSIX to show that it's not the ultimate reference in
programming.

> It doesn't actually do what any sane person would
want, unless you don't really care what ends up in the destination string.  But if you don't
care, why call it at all?

That's false: when you don't make a mistake the destination string is correct, when you do
make a mistake, then even if the destination string is incorrect at least this isn't (normaly)
a security issue, which is much better that what those other string copy provides.