tree-wide: be more careful with the type of array sizes
Previously we were a bit sloppy with the index and size types of arrays, we'd regularly use unsigned. While I don't think this ever resulted in real issues I think we should be more careful there and follow a stricter regime: unless there's a strong reason not to use size_t for array sizes and indexes, size_t it should be. Any allocations we do ultimately will use size_t anyway, and converting forth and back between unsigned and size_t will always be a source of problems. Note that on 32bit machines "unsigned" and "size_t" are equivalent, and on 64bit machines our arrays shouldn't grow that large anyway, and if they do we have a problem, however that kind of overly large allocation we have protections for usually, but for overflows we do not have that so much, hence let's add it. So yeah, it's a story of the current code being already "good enough", but I think some extra type hygiene is better. This patch tries to be comprehensive, but it probably isn't and I missed a few cases. But I guess we can cover that later as we notice it. Among smaller fixes, this changes: 1. strv_length()' return type becomes size_t 2. the unit file changes array size becomes size_t 3. DNS answer and query array sizes become size_t Fixes: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76745
This commit is contained in:
+2
-2
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ static inline int safe_close_above_stdio(int fd) {
|
||||
return safe_close(fd);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
void close_many(const int fds[], unsigned n_fd);
|
||||
void close_many(const int fds[], size_t n_fd);
|
||||
|
||||
int fclose_nointr(FILE *f);
|
||||
FILE* safe_fclose(FILE *f);
|
||||
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ DEFINE_TRIVIAL_CLEANUP_FUNC(DIR*, closedir);
|
||||
int fd_nonblock(int fd, bool nonblock);
|
||||
int fd_cloexec(int fd, bool cloexec);
|
||||
|
||||
int close_all_fds(const int except[], unsigned n_except);
|
||||
int close_all_fds(const int except[], size_t n_except);
|
||||
|
||||
int same_fd(int a, int b);
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user