Re: strncpy is not a safe version of strcpy

* Tomas Vondra (tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz) wrote:
> On 15 Listopad 2013, 1:00, David Rowley wrote:
> > more focused on trying to draw a bit of attention to commit
> > 061b88c732952c59741374806e1e41c1ec845d50 which uses strncpy and does not
> > properly set the last byte to 0 afterwards. I think this case could just
> > be
> > replaced with strlcpy which does all this hard work for us.
>
> Hmm, you mean this piece of code?
>
> strncpy(saved_argv0, argv[0], MAXPGPATH);
>
> IMHO you're right that's probably broken, unless there's some checking
> happening before the call.

Agreed, that looks like a place we should be using strlcpy() instead.

Robert, what do you think?

Thanks,

Stephen