Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:14:27 -0600 From: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org>, Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com> Subject: Re: svn commit: r279932 - head/sys/vm Message-ID: <1426263267.91779.19.camel@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <29142844.yUiOLJLpmU@ralph.baldwin.cx> References: <201503121806.t2CI6VSU034853@svn.freebsd.org> <CAFMmRNx%2BB=LtPt2Vx=9dEACiLVQgY9gWu%2B6KmmcYHbP13wX5QA@mail.gmail.com> <1426202691.6265.4.camel@freebsd.org> <29142844.yUiOLJLpmU@ralph.baldwin.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 06:24 -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > On Thursday, March 12, 2015 05:24:51 PM Ian Lepore wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-03-12 at 17:02 -0400, Ryan Stone wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Nullterminate strings returned via sysctl. > > > > > > > > PR: 195668 > > > > > > > > > > To quote the manpage: > > > > > > > The *sbuf* family of functions allows one to safely > > > > allocate, construct and release bounded null-terminated > > > > strings in kernel space. > > > > > > IMO the sbuf API is broken if we have to explicitly null-terminate the > > > string ourselves. > > > > If we want the nullterm to be counted in the length of data in the > > buffer (and thus get transmitted back across the syscall boundary) we > > need to put an explicit counted nullterm byte into the buffer. > > > > I had started down the path of making that (counting the nullterm byte > > as part of the data in the buffer) a feature of sbuf that you could set > > with a flag, but then whoever added sbuf_new_for_sysctl() didn't > > propagate the flags field through the new function and I decided to not > > go off into the weeds making a new flavor of that takes flags. > > One suggestion would be to consider using '\0' for a nul character instead of > a bare 0. To me that communicates the intention more clearly to the reader. > (One of the things I did not like about C++ < C++11 was the use of 0 for > NULL. I much prefer nullptr and NULL in C over bare 0's for pointers for > similar clarity reasons.) > I have waffled back and forth between preferring 0 or '\0' for 30 years, I just seem to go through phases with nullterm expression. In general I'm glad I got called away to an onsite meeting yesterday and didn't get far with these changes, because the more I think about it, the less satisfied I am with this expedient fix. The other fix I started on, where a new SBUF_COUNTNUL flag can be set to inform the sbuf_finish() code that you want the terminating nul counted in the data length just feels like a better fit for the overall "automaticness" of how the sbuf stuff works. -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1426263267.91779.19.camel>