Re: 回复: Fix potential overflow risks from wcscpy and sprintf

Yan Haibo <haibo(dot)yan(at)hotmail(dot)com> writes:
> Thank you. Peter. It seems the patch may have been lost during our earlier communication, so I¡¯ve reattached it here.
> I hope it comes through correctly this time.

Thanks for the patch.

Using wcsncpy in search_locale_enum() seems fine, assuming it exists
on Windows (note that code is Windows-only, possibly explaining why
we've not seen other static-analysis reports). I doubt there's any
actual bug there, since we're relying on Windows' own
LOCALE_NAME_MAX_LENGTH constant; but I agree the chain of reasoning
is kind of long. (But shouldn't you write LOCALE_NAME_MAX_LENGTH
not LOCALE_NAME_MAX_LENGTH - 1?)

I'm unexcited about the guc.c changes. There is visibly no bug
there. The only reason to change it would be if we were going
to introduce a strict project policy against using sprintf(),
which we're not likely to given that there are hundreds of other
occurrences in our code base. I don't see a reason to think
that these three are more pressing than the others.

regards, tom lane