Re: [PATCH] seq_buf: Introduce DECLARE_SEQ_BUF and seq_buf_cstr()

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 02:02:47PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 10:54:26 -0700
Kees Cook [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

Do we really need to call it _cstr? Why not just have seq_buf_str() ?

I mean, this is C, do we need to state that in the name too?  

I'm fine either way. I did that just to make the distinction between our
length-managed string of characters interface (seq_buf), and the
%NUL-terminated string of characters (traditionally called "C String" in
other languages). And it was still shorter than "seq_buf_terminate(s);
s->buffer" ;)

Do you believe that people might get confused with it as seq_buf_str()?

Can you envision that we would want a seq_buf_str() and seq_buf_cstr() that
do something different?

No, I see your point. Like I said, I don't care either way. I was just
explaining why I did it that way. "string" means a lot of things to
different people. "C String" is unambiguous, and I try to be unambiguous
whenever possible. :)

I'll send a v2 as seq_buf_str()...

-- 
Kees Cook