LyX 2.3.4 is Released
forenr at lyx.org
Thu Feb 6 17:44:50 UTC 2020
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 06:16:00PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 06:01:26PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 05:46:57PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 04:02:34PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 12:59:53PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > > > > I looked at the code and the buffer length seems properly handled in the reported
> > > > > line (247) by the previous if clause.
> > > > > What is not clear to me are two following lines, which add m+1 chars while the
> > > > > check seem to properly handle only m chars and leaving no place for the final' \0'.
> > > > > Anyone else can confirm?
> > > >
> > > > I think the code is correct. It copies m+1 chars in order to be sure that
> > > > the final '\0' is also copied. The fact that there is space for it is
> > > > assured by the initial check that k+m+1 < MAX_WD_LEN.
> > >
> > > I checked the code again and you are right.
> > > Misread < (by <=) in the initial condition.
> > On second thought, I instead think you are right. The code also adds
> > a blank after the first strncpy(dfn,pos,k), and that makes a total
> > of k+m+2 chars when accounting also for the final '\0'.
> This is what I initially thought, but no k+m+2 is still ok because we
> check against < MAX_WD_LEN-1 not <= MAX_WD_LEN-1.
Right. k+m+2 <= MAX_WD_LEN implies k+m < MAX_WD_LEN-1.
More information about the lyx-devel