61–70 of 329 posts
musl libc (an alternative libc) provides implementations of these functions that are memory-safe. (It only works on Linux though.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like essentially all C programs.
What's a good library for this kind of boilerplate? A lightweight one if possible, i.e. not fucking glib
K&R is turning in its grave.
For anybody else: Why is strncpy insecure? https://stackoverflow.com/questions/869883/why-is-strncpy-in... > strncpy() doesn't require NUL termination, and is therefore susceptible to a variety of exploits.
Why is there no brief explanations in this code why each function is banned?
Just to make it clear. I'm aware of the fact that these functions have security implications. Nonetheless when such decisions are made, I believe it's important to explain them—at least briefly—directly in the code itself.
They could rename them as “sorry X is unsafe and creates too much trouble” maybe, but in today’s internet “X considered harmful” is a common search query that everyone in the field is expected to know.
That's a surprisingly small list, missing e.g. sscanf / gets / strtok / all the other "usual suspects" at least
I don't see a huge problem with strtok as long as it isn't a multi threaded program. It is not in gets territory which is literally impossible to use correctly.
I'm glad to see that setjmp() and longjmp() are still allowed. I'm just kidding by the way. For those C programmers who haven't encountered these before, it is a powerful way to do a "goto" in C. Powerful in the sense that you can jump anywhere, not limited to the same function. If it's used at all these days, it's used for exception handling. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setjmp.h
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to make it clear. I'm aware of the fact that these functions have security implications. Nonetheless when such decisions are made, I believe it's important to explain them—at least briefly—directly in the code itself.
With the way they are banned, you see it only as a compiler warning on implicit declaration of function (or at linking stage, if warnings are suppressed; idk what exact build process is). Afair, there is no evidence of banned.h in an error trace. So you have to look it up by yourself anyway. They could rename them as “sorry X is unsafe and creates too much trouble” maybe, but in today’s internet “X considered harmful…