Bugtraq mailing list archives
Re: strcpy versus strncpy
From: smb () RESEARCH ATT COM (Steve Bellovin)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 12:07:18 -0500
Classic UNIX -- i.e., 7th Edition and the like, before Berkeley -- had no limit on path length in the kernel. Assorted applications often did have fixed-length buffers, of course, but not the kernel. A path name was fetched one byte at a time, and analyzed one component at a time. (For fun, I just went back and reviewed the code in my ancient copy of the Lions commentary on the 6th Edition kernel...)
Current thread:
- Re: strcpy versus strncpy, (continued)
- Re: strcpy versus strncpy Edwin Li-Kai Liu (Mar 03)
- Re: strcpy versus strncpy Ben Laurie (Mar 03)
- Re: strcpy versus strncpy Chris L. Mason (Mar 03)
- Re: strcpy versus strncpy der Mouse (Mar 04)
- Re: strcpy versus strncpy Aleph One (Mar 04)
- Re: strcpy versus strncpy Aleph One (Mar 04)
- Re: strcpy versus strncpy Aleph One (Mar 04)
- Re: strcpy versus strncpy Aleph One (Mar 04)
- Re: strcpy versus strncpy der Mouse (Mar 05)
- Re: strcpy versus strncpy Nick Maclaren (Mar 05)
- Re: strcpy versus strncpy Steve Bellovin (Mar 05)
- Re: strcpy versus strncpy Paul McNabb (Mar 05)