From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5349F3858D33 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2023 12:27:54 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 5349F3858D33 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1686054473; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=BTSm590l1x59c3R1OZzdRDmEo3EzOlC7C8hCqxLL7xY=; b=E6NyA72bSLuMD54TRVTwoM3NOctxpl0ONWaXWCNlgdqU+LLSvSEHV617t48W00RdIPU6c8 61pQNjeRYogw3EsMczhpYb9cNoY89wBr3OkcvyowdudObGXnxt7Aal9F7D/f6L13ZovRdG S5JEXDx8NPwQHGK4X3XAlmbRL7I5qA4= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-629-xLPrEnEtP0e8mS-ZBTcs5w-1; Tue, 06 Jun 2023 08:27:48 -0400 X-MC-Unique: xLPrEnEtP0e8mS-ZBTcs5w-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC7F7811E94; Tue, 6 Jun 2023 12:27:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg3.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.39.193.74]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17D951121314; Tue, 6 Jun 2023 12:27:46 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Siddhesh Poyarekar Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] manual: Manual update for strlcat, strlcpy, wcslcat, wclscpy References: <7bfe308b-d558-9094-9d42-b62784fc4669@gotplt.org> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2023 14:27:45 +0200 In-Reply-To: <7bfe308b-d558-9094-9d42-b62784fc4669@gotplt.org> (Siddhesh Poyarekar's message of "Tue, 6 Jun 2023 02:03:03 -0400") Message-ID: <877csg93ni.fsf@oldenburg3.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.3 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: * Siddhesh Poyarekar: >> +The behavior is undefined if @var{to} or @var{from} is a null pointer, >> +or if the destination array's size is less than @var{size}, or if the >> +string @var{from} overlaps the first @var{size} bytes of the >> +destination array. > > Shouldn't this be undefined for all kinds of overlaps between @var{to} > and @var{from} and not just when the @{from} overlaps with the first > @var{size} bytes of @var{to}? I don't think so. There is no reason why the data couldn't be copied within the same array. This can plausibly happen if a custom memory allocator is used, for example. > Also, perhaps s/destination array/@var{to}/ to make it clearer. I don't think so because it's confusing whether the size refers to TO itself or (conceptually) to *TO. Thanks, Florian