Hi Jakub, >You should also pass PATH_MAX-1 not PATH_MAX as the third argument of >snprintf, otherwise you risk a off-by-one error in case the buffers had >the same length.
snprintf ? Do you mean strncpy instead of instead of snprintf? since I haven't used snprintf in my code. On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Jakub Hrozek <jhro...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 06:34:45PM +0530, Abhishek Singh wrote: > > Hi Jakub, > > > > I have made necessary changes, please review it. > > > > thanks, > > > > Hi Abhishek, > > the test compiles and runs fine, the patches apply cleanly on top of one > another and the teardown function is used cleanly. > > I only have one last comment -- I wasn't completely clear with how I > would like to see the PATH_MAX used. PATH_MAX is a constant defined in > the standard header file limits.h, you don't have to define it yourself, > just include limits.h. > > You should also pass PATH_MAX-1 not PATH_MAX as the third argument of > snprintf, otherwise you risk a off-by-one error in case the buffers had > the same length. > > This is the last comment I have, then we'll push the patch :) > _______________________________________________ > sssd-devel mailing list > sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org > https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel >
_______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
