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
