I wrote these for a hobby project (I wanted to use them, but needed to
be able to build it on systems that don't have them), and it's probably
worth letting CLC rip them to shreds before I call them done.
They implement, modulo bugs, the behavior of the BSD strlcat and
strlcpy functions. Interestingly, the system I'm actually posting from
(SunOS 5.8) fails one of the tests at the bottom when it uses the
versions in the system library.
They're intended to be in the common subset of C90 and C99. Comments
on correctness and clarity are welcome; comments on style will be
tolerated.
dave
strl.h:
--------
#ifndef H_STRL
#define H_STRL
/*Implementation of BSD strlcat and strlcpy, for systems that don't have them.
Written by Dave Vandervies, December 2007.
Placed in the public domain; attribution is appreciated.
*/
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" { /*make C++ compilers play nicely with the linker*/
#endif
#ifndef HAS_STRLFUNCS
/*strlcpy copies a string from src to dest, creating a string at most
maxlen bytes long (including the '\0' terminator).
Returns the length of the string that would be created without
truncation, excluding the '\0' terminator. (So if the return value
is >= maxlen, the result was truncated.)
*/
size_t my_strlcpy(char *dest,const char *src,size_t maxlen);
/*strlcat appends the contents of src to dest, creating a string at
most maxlen bytes long (including the '\0' terminator).
If src is already longer than maxlen bytes long, its contents
are not changed.
Returns the length of the string that would be created without
truncation, excluding the '\0' terminator, or maxlen+strlen(src)
if no '\0' is found within maxlen bytes of *dest. (So if the
return value is >= maxlen, the result was truncated.)
*/
size_t my_strlcat(char *dest,const char *src,size_t maxlen);
#ifndef CLC_PEDANTIC
#undef strlcpy
#define strlcpy my_strlcpy
#undef strlcat
#define strlcat my_strlcat
#endif /*CLC_PEDANTIC*/
#else /*HAS_STRLFUNCS*/
#include <string.h>
#endif /*HAS_STRLFUNCS*/
#ifdef __cplusplus
} /*close extern "C"*/
#endif
#endif /*H_STRL #include guard*/
--------
strl.c:
--------
#include <assert.h>
#include <string.h>
#include "strl.c"
/*Implementation of BSD strlcat and strlcpy, for systems that don't have them.
Written by Dave Vandervies, December 2007.
Placed in the public domain; attribution is appreciated.
*/
#ifndef HAS_STRLFUNCS
size_t my_strlcpy(char *dest,const char *src,size_t maxlen)
{
size_t len,needed;
#ifdef PARANOID
assert(dest!=NULL);
assert(src!=NULL);
#endif
len=needed=strlen(src)+1;
if(len >= maxlen)
len=maxlen-1;
memcpy(dest,src,len);
dest[len]='\0';
return needed-1;
}
size_t my_strlcat(char *dest,const char *src,size_t maxlen)
{
size_t src_len,dst_len;
size_t len,needed;
#ifdef PARANOID
assert(dest!=NULL);
assert(src!=NULL);
#endif
src_len=strlen(src);
/*Be paranoid about dest being a properly terminated string*/
{
char *end=memchr(dest,'\0',maxlen);
if(!end)
return maxlen+src_len;
dst_len=end-dest;
}
len=needed=dst_len+src_len+1;
if(len >= maxlen)
len=maxlen-1;
memcpy(dest+dst_len,src,len-dst_len);
dest[len]='\0';
return needed-1;
}
#endif /*!HAS_STRLFUNCS*/
#ifdef UNIT_TEST
#include <stdio.h>
/*
dj3vande@goofy:~/clc (0) $ gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -O -DUNIT_TEST -ostrl strl.c
dj3vande@goofy:~/clc (0) $ ./strl
strlcpy with truncation: Expect `hel'/5: `hel'/5
strlcat with truncation: Expect `help!'/9: `help!'/9
strlcpy without truncation: Expect `help!'/5: `help!'/5
strlcat without truncation: Expect `help!help!'/10: `help!help!'/10
strlcat with maxlen<strlen(dest): Expect `help!help!'/9: `help!help!'/9
dj3vande@goofy:~/clc (0) $
*/
int main(void)
{
char buf1[256],buf2[256];
unsigned long ret;
#ifdef HAS_STRLFUNCS
#define my_strlcpy strlcpy
#define my_strlcat strlcat
printf("Using system library versions\n");
#endif
ret=my_strlcpy(buf1,"hello",4);
printf("strlcpy with truncation: Expect `hel'/5: `%s'/%lu\n",buf1,ret);
ret=my_strlcat(buf1,"p!!!!!",6);
printf("strlcat with truncation: Expect `help!'/9: `%s'/%lu\n",buf1,ret);
ret=my_strlcpy(buf2,buf1,sizeof buf2);
printf("strlcpy without truncation: Expect `help!'/5: `%s'/%lu\n",buf2,ret);
ret=my_strlcat(buf2,buf1,sizeof buf2);
printf("strlcat without truncation: Expect `help!help!'/10: `%s'/%lu\n",buf2,ret);
ret=my_strlcat(buf2,buf1,4);
printf("strlcat with maxlen<strlen(dest): Expect `help!help!'/9: `%s'/%lu\n",buf2,ret);
return 0;
}
#endif /*UNIT_TEST*/
-------- 9 6059 dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid wrote:
>
I wrote these for a hobby project (I wanted to use them, but
needed to be able to build it on systems that don't have them),
and it's probably worth letting CLC rip them to shreds before I
call them done.
They implement, modulo bugs, the behavior of the BSD strlcat and
strlcpy functions. Interestingly, the system I'm actually
posting from (SunOS 5.8) fails one of the tests at the bottom
when it uses the versions in the system library.
They're intended to be in the common subset of C90 and C99.
Comments on correctness and clarity are welcome; comments on
style will be tolerated.
Take a look at:
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net/download/strlcpy.zip>
They are written to be compact and avoid any further use of the
standard library. This improves their usefullness where memory is
tight. I notice yours uses calls to strlen.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid wrote:
[...]
(Over 24 hours and only one response? I need to get my sigmonster set
up on this account, then at least Richard H will read my posts.)
I have seen your request, the main reason for not checking this deeper,
has been primary that those strl* interfaces has IMO a design weakness,
which I eliminated in my own implementation.
I think you should put more effort into your test function, perhaps even
provide some self test function with external linkage, at least use
EXIT_FAILURE in case one test case fail. Also, watching the output from
successful tests, can be tiresome in a big project.
I would remove PARANOID, using assert() isn't paranoid. :) The
CLC_PEDANTIC is not needed, we do know these functions invade the
reserved C name space, but the C committee wouldn't use these names for
something different.
The usage of #ifdef's should be minimized in source, and primary used in
header files instead. Because of all these macros, the code became more
hard-to-read, than it should have been.
I will post another followup, if I get time to write a test function
tomorrow.
--
Tor <bw****@wvtqvm.vw | tr i-za-h a-z>
In article <fj**********@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
<dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalidwrote:
>If the inputs are well-formed neither implementation will ever create an improperly terminated string.
On second thought, the conditional is irrelevant there; neither
implementation will ever change the contents of memory UNLESS the
inputs are well-formed, in which case the new contents of the
destination buffer will be a properly terminated string.
dave
(needs coffee, or sleep, or both) dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid said:
<snip>
(Over 24 hours and only one response? I need to get my sigmonster set
up on this account, then at least Richard H will read my posts.)
You know me too well, Dave.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
In article <47***************@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer <cb********@maineline.netwrote:
>dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid wrote:
>If the dest argument to strlcat does not in fact point to a correctly terminated string, the BSD implementation will stop looking for a '\0' after maxlen bytes. This avoids walking through large amounts of memory (only to read - it wouldn't be written in any case) when it's given bad input.
I would argue that my technique is better. It will normally cause an immediate fault during the call, which should leave traces as to the cause, and be repairable.
Only if it hits unreadable memory and causes a read trap before it
finds a zero byte. I'd expect it to find a zero byte and give
completely bogus results more often than it would cause a trap.
I don't think either is obviously better in general. If you're using
them to make it easier to write safe code (the original motivation for
adding them in OpenBSD, if I'm not mistaken) it makes sense to give
slightly wrong results for incorrect inputs in return for the added
safety, but if you're just treating them as string operations that do
what strncpy and strncat look like they should do, getting the
"expected" result from strlcat when the destination string is longer
than the maxlen argument is probably worth the cost of getting
completely wrong results or maybe a memory protection trap when the
destination string isn't properly terminated.
dave dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid wrote:
CBFalconer <cb********@maineline.netwrote:
>dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid wrote:
>>If the dest argument to strlcat does not in fact point to a correctly terminated string, the BSD implementation will stop looking for a '\0' after maxlen bytes. This avoids walking through large amounts of memory (only to read - it wouldn't be written in any case) when it's given bad input.
I would argue that my technique is better. It will normally cause an immediate fault during the call, which should leave traces as to the cause, and be repairable.
Only if it hits unreadable memory and causes a read trap before
it finds a zero byte. I'd expect it to find a zero byte and give
completely bogus results more often than it would cause a trap.
True. The 'read onward' has at least a chance of blowing on a bad
call. However, the 'stop after maxlen' just gives the 'destination
too small' response, and no sign of a basic error. The natural
reaction is to increase the destination size, and try again. Still
fails (maybe). At any rate, C programmers should be used to having
dire things happen when failing to pass strings to things expecting
strings.
--
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy New Year
Joyeux Noel, Bonne Annee.
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Tor Rustad wrote:
dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid wrote:
.... snip ...
>> Out of curiousity, what is that design weakness, and how did you fix it?
Many will not check the return value for truncation. There are
cases where this is not a bug, but most of the cases it will be,
and strl* may hurt matters by hiding it.
I gather you consider failing to check the return value is OK and
that writing on unowned (or nonexistant) memory is prefereable to
truncation?
--
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy New Year
Joyeux Noel, Bonne Annee.
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
CBFalconer wrote:
Tor Rustad wrote:
>dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid wrote:
.... snip ...
>>Out of curiousity, what is that design weakness, and how did you fix it?
Many will not check the return value for truncation. There are cases where this is not a bug, but most of the cases it will be, and strl* may hurt matters by hiding it.
I gather you consider failing to check the return value is OK and
that writing on unowned (or nonexistant) memory is prefereable to
truncation?
Very odd conclusion, what did you think *fail safe* meant?
--
Tor <bw****@wvtqvm.vw | tr i-za-h a-z>
Tor Rustad wrote:
CBFalconer wrote:
>Tor Rustad wrote:
>>dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid wrote:
.... snip ...
>>>Out of curiousity, what is that design weakness, and how did you fix it?
Many will not check the return value for truncation. There are cases where this is not a bug, but most of the cases it will be, and strl* may hurt matters by hiding it.
I gather you consider failing to check the return value is OK and that writing on unowned (or nonexistant) memory is prefereable to truncation?
Very odd conclusion, what did you think *fail safe* meant?
I came to this conclusion when you recommend not checking the
returned value, which means you cannot detect an undersized
buffer. Either you are using strlcpy and the result is truncated,
or you are using strcpy (or equivalent) and the result is
overwriting. I am not forgiving failure to check the returned
value.
If I am way off please elucidate. Of course strlcpy can't
auto-expand the destination, since it has to operate into arbitrary
buffers.
--
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy New Year
Joyeux Noel, Bonne Annee.
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Shri |
last post by:
hi all,
i am writing a code in which i have a char buffer "cwdir"
which hold the current working directory by calling the function
getcwd(). later i change the directory to "/" as i have to make...
|
by: Trevor |
last post by:
If I have a string that should be NULL terminated, is it good practice to
use "sizeof(str)" or "sizeof(str) - 1" when using a function like strncpy?
If I have a 'string' that should NOT be NULL...
|
by: Aleksandar Milivojevic |
last post by:
I had to write implementation of strlcat() (some source from Microsoft
I got was using it, and strlcat/strlcpy doesn't exist in my libc).
Two quick questions.
If NULL is not encountered in...
|
by: Matt |
last post by:
I have 2 questions:
1. strlen returns an unsigned (size_t) quantity. Why is an unsigned
value more approprate than a signed value? Why is unsighned value less
appropriate?
2. Would there...
|
by: Vaddina Prakash Rao |
last post by:
Good morning everyone,
Can someone comment what is wrong with these statements ..
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
main()
{
char *final, *s="abcdefghij";
int count...
|
by: Andreas Klimas |
last post by:
Hello,
does anybody know about a standardfunction or a simpler way
to get this result.
int ends_with(char *string, char *has);
answer whether string ends with substring has or not.
|
by: RoSsIaCrIiLoIA |
last post by:
d_0=32.000000
d_1=38.000000
Test success
d_0=34.000000
d_1=42.000000
Test success
d_0=1.000000
d_1=0.000000
Test success
|
by: nano2 |
last post by:
Hi all,
I have the following scenario but strlcpy is not supported in GCC4.1 and that's the C compiler i am using .
Does anyone know of a similar way this canbe achieved ..
if...
|
by: BigRelax |
last post by:
Hello`` I am a student from chinese.
I like C.
--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/group/comp.lang.c/
More information at http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/faq.html
|
by: DJRhino |
last post by:
Was curious if anyone else was having this same issue or not....
I was just Up/Down graded to windows 11 and now my access combo boxes are not acting right. With win 10 I could start typing...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 4 Oct 2023 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM)
The start time is equivalent to 19:00 (7PM) in Central...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Hello everyone,
I have a question and would like some advice on network connectivity. I have one computer connected to my router via WiFi, but I have two other computers that I want to be able to...
|
by: NeoPa |
last post by:
Introduction
For this article I'll be using a very simple database which has Form (clsForm) & Report (clsReport) classes that simply handle making the calling Form invisible until the Form, or all...
|
by: Teri B |
last post by:
Hi, I have created a sub-form Roles. In my course form the user selects the roles assigned to the course.
0ne-to-many. One course many roles.
Then I created a report based on the Course form and...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 1 Nov 2023 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM)
Please note that the UK and Europe revert to winter time on...
|
by: NeoPa |
last post by:
Introduction
For this article I'll be focusing on the Report (clsReport) class. This simply handles making the calling Form invisible until all of the Reports opened by it have been closed, when it...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next online meeting of the Access Europe User Group will be on Wednesday 6 Dec 2023 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM).
In this month's session, Mike...
|
by: GKJR |
last post by:
Does anyone have a recommendation to build a standalone application to replace an Access database? I have my bookkeeping software I developed in Access that I would like to make available to other...
| |