From 34fa79a6cde56d6d428ab0d3160cb094ebad3305 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jeff King Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:08:19 -0400 Subject: prefer memcpy to strcpy When we already know the length of a string (e.g., because we just malloc'd to fit it), it's nicer to use memcpy than strcpy, as it makes it more obvious that we are not going to overflow the buffer (because the size we pass matches the size in the allocation). This also eliminates calls to strcpy, which make auditing the code base harder. Signed-off-by: Jeff King Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano --- compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c') diff --git a/compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c b/compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c index 609ebba125..a0a16eb1bb 100644 --- a/compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c +++ b/compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c @@ -957,8 +957,9 @@ char *strdup(const char *s1) { char *s2 = 0; if (s1) { - s2 = malloc(strlen(s1) + 1); - strcpy(s2, s1); + size_t len = strlen(s1) + 1; + s2 = malloc(len); + memcpy(s2, s1, len); } return s2; } -- cgit v1.2.3