On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:57 AM Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 11:28:29 -0700 > Nick Desaulniers <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The cited code looks like a check comparing that the pointer distance > > is greater than the size of bytes being passed in. I'd wager > > someone's calling memmove with overlapping memory regions when they > > really wanted memcpy. Maybe a better question, is why was memmove > > ever used; if there was some invariant that the memory regions > > overlapped, why is that invariant no longer holding. > > I'm confused by the above statement as memmove() allows overlapping of > src and dest, where as memcpy() does not.
Yes you're right; I confused the two. From the snippet in the original email, it looks like the body of a fortified memcpy was provided, and a memmove declaration was below it. So replace my assumption of a bad call to memmove with a bad call to memcpy (which should then make more sense, hopefully). -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
