News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Printable True Bugs Wait Posters by _telemachus on Friday January 31, 2014 @10:52AM (#7157247)
Good for laughs. Thanks. Now the serious follow up: Ok, what else should someone do?

Programs (often) handle text. Apparently, that pretty much means you're fucked. So what is a reasonable way to write such programs?

Re:Printable True Bugs Wait Posters by cube13 on Friday January 31, 2014 @11:19AM (#7157386)
Make damned sure you know what you're doing. That means making sure you have enough memory allocated to avoid overflows, and that any input is sanitized before putting it down. Meaning, if you're using a function that's expecting a null terminated string, make SURE it's null terminated before copying. Or that you know the exact length to pass into a length specified function.

The problem isn't necessarily the functions themselves, it's coders who make assumptions that don't pan out to be true.

Re:Printable True Bugs Wait Posters by thinkpad20 on Friday January 31, 2014 @11:24AM (#7157410)
Do all of your string work with these guys:

    struct string {
      char *str;
      unsigned length;
    }
Re:Printable True Bugs Wait Posters by _telemachus on Friday January 31, 2014 @11:54AM (#7157572)
Let's assume your string struct is solid. Then does that mean you can safely use it with `printf, fprintf, sprintf` (e.g. printf("%s", string->value)? Or must you also write custom versions of those functions? How deep does this rabbit hole go?
Re:Printable True Bugs Wait Posters by thinkpad20 on Friday January 31, 2014 @12:10PM (#7157695)
You don't have to write custom versions of any of those functions; just use the char pointer in the struct instead of a bare char pointer. Keeping track of the length of your strings gives an easy way to provide the 'n' in all of those 'n' functions, and has other advantages besides. But the use of such a struct in and of itself, of course, provides no guarantees of safety. There is no such thing in C anyway :)
Re:Printable True Bugs Wait Posters by dllthomas on Friday January 31, 2014 @03:58PM (#7159141)
You'd probably want

    "%.*s"
or possibly even

    "%*.*s"
if you want it space padded. In principle you can bound your space usage and avoid an snprintf with such constructs; in practice, it's probably better to still use snprintf (if you're using standard-library string functions at all).
Re:Printable True Bugs Wait Posters by dllthomas on Friday January 31, 2014 @11:18AM (#7157380)
If you're able, don't treat text as zero-terminated char arrays. Ideally, you'd have a well fleshed-out library for encoding-aware ropes.
Re:Printable True Bugs Wait Posters by Arnor on Friday January 31, 2014 @11:51AM (#7157552)
Which libraries do you recommend?
Re:Printable True Bugs Wait Posters by dllthomas on Friday January 31, 2014 @12:06PM (#7157657)
Unfortunately, I don't know of one. My recent C work has worked with text only in a very limited capacity (parsing and building packets in an ascii format - for the later, vectorized write buffers are a poor-man's ropes).

Edited to add:

Apparently there is this: http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/gc/gc_source/cordh...

Re:Printable True Bugs Wait Posters by oofabz on Friday January 31, 2014 @05:17PM (#7159550)
I recommend bstring for length-prefixed strings in C:

http://bstring.sourceforge.net/

Re:Printable True Bugs Wait Posters by clarry on Sunday February 02, 2014 @04:34AM (#7165453)
Bstring relies on undefined behavior for security. Don't use it if you care about security.