From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Cosmetic improvements in new config_info code. |
Date: | 2016-02-21 18:37:18 |
Message-ID: | 20160221183718.GT3331@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Joe, all,
* Joe Conway (mail(at)joeconway(dot)com) wrote:
> On 02/21/2016 08:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Coverity griped about use of unchecked strcpy() into a local variable.
> > There's unlikely to be any actual bug there, since no caller would be
> > passing a path longer than MAXPGPATH, but nonetheless use of strlcpy()
> > seems preferable.
>
> FWIW, strcpy() was being used in src/bin/pg_config/pg_config.c that I
> started with -- does that mean we are not getting Coverity coverage of
> src/bin?
Coverity does run against src/bin also. It's possible this was
identified as an issue in pg_config.c, but, as Tom notes, it may not be
an actual bug and might have been marked as a non-bug in Coverity.
Thanks!
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-02-21 18:48:42 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Cosmetic improvements in new config_info code. |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2016-02-21 18:17:51 | Re: pgsql: Cosmetic improvements in new config_info code. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-02-21 18:48:42 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Cosmetic improvements in new config_info code. |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2016-02-21 18:17:51 | Re: pgsql: Cosmetic improvements in new config_info code. |