Re: [PATCH 3/4] security/selinux: decrement sizeof size in strncmp

[Joe Perches]

On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 21:12 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote: 
> Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-11-14 at 03:44 +0000, David Wagner wrote:
> >> I personally don't find
> >>     strncmp(foo, "constant", sizeof("constant"))        // first snippet
> >> to be more readable, auditable, or obviously correct than
> >>     strcmp(foo, "constant").                            // second snippet
> >> Is there a technical basis for arguing that the first
> >> snippet is better than the second snippet?
> > I don't think there is.
> And you're exactly correct.
> This whole discussion is around a gratuitous
> change that has no net effect on the behavior of the system.

It has relatively little or no effect on a
running system, but does effect code
readability.

> I am advocating that the code be left as is.

I assert that code should be made as readable
as possible and that the code used fit the
reader's expectations.

strcmp(foo, "BAR") is natural.
strncmp(foo, "BAR", sizeof("BAR")) is unnatural
and should not be used.

cheers, Joe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/