That's what I mean. The size in snprintf() includes the terminating 0. That's why I replaced it with sizeof. And that's why I wrote in the commit message that there is no actual issue, rather than a potential. ... when someone changes the size of the buffer downwards.
Cheers Petr On 16/05/17 22:18, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 09:58:19PM +0200, Petr Kulhavy wrote: >> Did I miss something? What is the reason then? > Never mind, this is snprintf() and not strncpy(). > > The original code was confused and misleading using 31 (but not really > incorrect either). > > Thanks, > Richard ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
