Re: [hackers] [dwm] [PATCH] add a comment to clarify a potential overflow of ltsymbol

2023-02-15 Thread Hiltjo Posthuma
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 05:28:43PM +, Tom Schwindl wrote: > Hi Hiltjo, > > > Hi, > > > > I think it is too verbose and don't think the comment is neccesary. > > > > I can understand the verbosity part, but that's something I can change. > My point here was more that bug reports get posted to

Re: [hackers] [dwm] [PATCH] add a comment to clarify a potential overflow of ltsymbol

2023-02-15 Thread Tom Schwindl
Hi Hiltjo, > Hi, > > I think it is too verbose and don't think the comment is neccesary. > I can understand the verbosity part, but that's something I can change. My point here was more that bug reports get posted to the ML and I even get them in private or from people I know in person. So I

Re: [hackers] [dwm] [PATCH] add a comment to clarify a potential overflow of ltsymbol

2023-02-15 Thread Hiltjo Posthuma
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 11:29:26AM +, Tom Schwindl wrote: > In case the strncpy() call is advised to copy >=16 characters, ltsymbol > overflows. > As dwm does not expect to have a ltsymbol bigger than 15 characters, there > will be > no length check[0]. Our target audience are programmers,

[hackers] [dwm] [PATCH] add a comment to clarify a potential overflow of ltsymbol

2023-02-15 Thread Tom Schwindl
In case the strncpy() call is advised to copy >=16 characters, ltsymbol overflows. As dwm does not expect to have a ltsymbol bigger than 15 characters, there will be no length check[0]. Our target audience are programmers, they should be able to figure out how to extend the length by themselves.