Em dom., 20 de jul. de 2025 às 10:35, Carlos Maiolino <cem@xxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 04:10:39PM -0300, Marcelo Moreira wrote: > > Em sex., 18 de jul. de 2025 às 08:16, Dave Chinner > > <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 02:34:25PM -0300, Marcelo Moreira wrote: > > > > Given that the original `strncpy()` is safe and correctly implemented > > > > for this context, and understanding that `memcpy()` would be the > > > > correct replacement if a change were deemed necessary for > > > > non-NUL-terminated raw data, I have a question: > > > > > > > > Do you still think a replacement is necessary here, or would you > > > > prefer to keep the existing `strncpy()` given its correct and safe > > > > usage in this context? If a replacement is preferred, I will resubmit > > > > a V2 using `memcpy()` instead. > > > > > > IMO: if it isn't broken, don't try to fix it. Hence I -personally- > > > wouldn't change it. > > > > > > However, modernisation and cleaning up of the code base to be > > > consistent is a useful endeavour. So from this perspective replacing > > > strncpy with memcpy() would be something I'd consider an acceptible > > > change. > > > > > > Largely it is up to the maintainer to decide..... > > > > Hmm ok, thanks for the teaching :) > > > > So, I'll prepare v2 replacing `strncpy` with `memcpy` aiming for that > > modernization and cleanup you mentioned, but it's clear that the > > intention is to focus on changes that cause real bugs. > > Thanks! > > > > I'm ok with cleanups, code refactoring, etc, when they are > aiming to improve something. > > I'm not against the strncpy -> memcpy change itself, but my biggest > concern is that I'm almost sure you are not testing it. I really do > wish to be wrong here though, so... > Did you test this patch before sending? > > I'm not talking about build and boot. Even for a 'small' change like > this, you should at least be running xfstests and ensure no tests are > failing because of this change, otherwise you are essentially sending > to the list an untested patch. > > Even experienced developers falls into the "I'm sure this patch is > correct", just to get caught by some testing system - just to emphasize > how important it's to test the patches you craft. I actually only tested build and boot, sorry. I wasn't aware of xfstests, thanks for letting me know. I'll research how to use xfstests. Thanks, Carlos :) -- Cheers, Marcelo Moreira
