Evan Layton wrote:
> Joseph J. VLcek wrote:
>> Evan Layton wrote:
>>> I need to get a review the following simple fix.
>>>
>>> This problem was caused by the inappropriate use of strncmp() in my
>>> fix for 3332. Because of the way strncmp() was being used we end up
>>> comparing only the length of the currently active BE name. What this
>>> causes is if the current BE is named say snv_108 and the BE we are
>>> attempting to rename is called snv_108-1 we only check the length of
>>> the current BE and of course it says these are the same so the
>>> rename fails. The fix in this case is to simply replace the
>>> strncmp() with strcmp().
>>>
>>> 7269 beadm rename can fail.
>>> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=7269
>>>
>>> Webrev:
>>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~evanl/7269/
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> -evan
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> caiman-discuss mailing list
>>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org
>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
>>
>> I have a safer suggestion:
>>
>> Maybe it would be safest to continue using strncmp with the length of
>> the longest string passed as "n" (lenght).
>>
>>
>>
>> e.g.:
>> #define MAX(a, b) ((a) > (b) ? (a) : (b))
>>
>> ...
>> if (strncmp(bt.obe_name, cbt.obe_name,
>> MAX(strlen(bt.obe_name), strlen(cbt.obe_name))) == 0) {
>>
>> ...
>>
>> What do you think? Would that be safer or unnecessary?
>>
>> Joe
>>
>
> I thought of something like this as well be decided against it sine
> the name of the currently active BE is already known to be a valid
> name it's length is fine. If the name we are attempting to use is too
> long it won't matter because we'll check it against the current BE and
> it will at most stop checking at the end of the currently active BE
> name. If they don't match the new BE name is checked for validity just
> after this check.
>
> I can certainly add this check for max length but I didn't think it
> was necessary.
>
> -evan
Fair enough.
