From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 20:58:05 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blame: prefer xsnprintf to strcpy for colors
Message-ID: <CAGZ79kakrS_tk=x4Rb9qSu9e4RVSJ=J64eOdasKhOy=g8kV68w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180713204350.GA16999@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 1:43 PM Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:

> ---
> Another option would just be color_parse(repeated_meta_color, "cyan").
> The run-time cost is slightly higher, but it probably doesn't matter
> here, and perhaps it's more readable.
>

Thanks for posting this again; this looks good to me!
Stefan

> I'm sad that this strcpy() wasn't caught in review. IMHO we should avoid
> that function altogether, even when we _think_ it can't trigger an
> overflow. That's easier to reason about (and makes auditing easier).

Can we somehow automatically find "bad code" either in pathces
or in new code (such as pu), e.g. as a coccicheck for these functions?