Add an implementation of the gnu-ish asprintf() and vasprintf(). They are
not based on gpl'ed code, just prototype and usage. I'm not 100% certain
they behave the same while the system is in trouble (eg: malloc() failing)
but in those circumstances all bets would be off anyway.
These routines work like sprintf() and vsprintf(), except that instead of
using a fixed buffer, they allocate memory and return it to the user
and it's the user's responsibility to free() it. They have allocate as
much memory as they need (and can get), so the size of strings it can deal
with is limited only by the amount of memory it can malloc() on your
behalf.
There are a few gpl'ed programs starting to use this interface, and it's
becoming more common with the scares about security risks with sprintf().
I dont like the look of the code that the various programs (including
cvs, gdb, libg++, etc) provide if configure can't find it on the system.
It should be possible to modify the stdio core code to provide this
interface more efficiently, I was more worried about having something
that worked and was secure. :-) (I noticed that there was once intended
to be a smprintf() routine when our stdio was written for 4.4BSD, but it
looks pretty stillborn, and it's intended interface is not clear). Since
Linux and gnu libc have this interface, it seemed silly to bring yet
another one onto the scene.
1996-05-27 10:49:43 +00:00
|
|
|
/*-
|
|
|
|
* Copyright (c) 1996 Peter Wemm <peter@freebsd.org>
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
|
|
|
|
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
|
|
|
|
* are met:
|
|
|
|
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
|
|
|
|
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
|
|
|
|
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
|
|
|
|
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
|
|
|
|
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
|
|
|
|
* ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
|
|
|
|
* IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
|
|
|
|
* ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
|
|
|
|
* FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
|
|
|
|
* DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS
|
|
|
|
* OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
|
|
|
|
* HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
|
|
|
|
* LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
|
|
|
|
* OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
|
|
|
|
* SUCH DAMAGE.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#if defined(LIBC_RCS) && !defined(lint)
|
1996-07-28 16:16:11 +00:00
|
|
|
static char rcsid[] = "$Id: vasprintf.c,v 1.2 1996/06/22 10:34:01 jraynard Exp $";
|
Add an implementation of the gnu-ish asprintf() and vasprintf(). They are
not based on gpl'ed code, just prototype and usage. I'm not 100% certain
they behave the same while the system is in trouble (eg: malloc() failing)
but in those circumstances all bets would be off anyway.
These routines work like sprintf() and vsprintf(), except that instead of
using a fixed buffer, they allocate memory and return it to the user
and it's the user's responsibility to free() it. They have allocate as
much memory as they need (and can get), so the size of strings it can deal
with is limited only by the amount of memory it can malloc() on your
behalf.
There are a few gpl'ed programs starting to use this interface, and it's
becoming more common with the scares about security risks with sprintf().
I dont like the look of the code that the various programs (including
cvs, gdb, libg++, etc) provide if configure can't find it on the system.
It should be possible to modify the stdio core code to provide this
interface more efficiently, I was more worried about having something
that worked and was secure. :-) (I noticed that there was once intended
to be a smprintf() routine when our stdio was written for 4.4BSD, but it
looks pretty stillborn, and it's intended interface is not clear). Since
Linux and gnu libc have this interface, it seemed silly to bring yet
another one onto the scene.
1996-05-27 10:49:43 +00:00
|
|
|
#endif /* LIBC_RCS and not lint */
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <stdio.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <stdlib.h>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#if __STDC__
|
|
|
|
#include <stdarg.h>
|
|
|
|
#else
|
|
|
|
#include <varargs.h>
|
|
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#define CHUNK_SPARE 128 /* how much spare to allocate to avoid realloc calls */
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
struct bufcookie {
|
|
|
|
char *base; /* start of buffer */
|
1996-07-28 16:16:11 +00:00
|
|
|
size_t size;
|
|
|
|
size_t left;
|
Add an implementation of the gnu-ish asprintf() and vasprintf(). They are
not based on gpl'ed code, just prototype and usage. I'm not 100% certain
they behave the same while the system is in trouble (eg: malloc() failing)
but in those circumstances all bets would be off anyway.
These routines work like sprintf() and vsprintf(), except that instead of
using a fixed buffer, they allocate memory and return it to the user
and it's the user's responsibility to free() it. They have allocate as
much memory as they need (and can get), so the size of strings it can deal
with is limited only by the amount of memory it can malloc() on your
behalf.
There are a few gpl'ed programs starting to use this interface, and it's
becoming more common with the scares about security risks with sprintf().
I dont like the look of the code that the various programs (including
cvs, gdb, libg++, etc) provide if configure can't find it on the system.
It should be possible to modify the stdio core code to provide this
interface more efficiently, I was more worried about having something
that worked and was secure. :-) (I noticed that there was once intended
to be a smprintf() routine when our stdio was written for 4.4BSD, but it
looks pretty stillborn, and it's intended interface is not clear). Since
Linux and gnu libc have this interface, it seemed silly to bring yet
another one onto the scene.
1996-05-27 10:49:43 +00:00
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
1996-06-22 10:34:15 +00:00
|
|
|
static int writehook __P((void *cookie, const char *, int));
|
|
|
|
|
Add an implementation of the gnu-ish asprintf() and vasprintf(). They are
not based on gpl'ed code, just prototype and usage. I'm not 100% certain
they behave the same while the system is in trouble (eg: malloc() failing)
but in those circumstances all bets would be off anyway.
These routines work like sprintf() and vsprintf(), except that instead of
using a fixed buffer, they allocate memory and return it to the user
and it's the user's responsibility to free() it. They have allocate as
much memory as they need (and can get), so the size of strings it can deal
with is limited only by the amount of memory it can malloc() on your
behalf.
There are a few gpl'ed programs starting to use this interface, and it's
becoming more common with the scares about security risks with sprintf().
I dont like the look of the code that the various programs (including
cvs, gdb, libg++, etc) provide if configure can't find it on the system.
It should be possible to modify the stdio core code to provide this
interface more efficiently, I was more worried about having something
that worked and was secure. :-) (I noticed that there was once intended
to be a smprintf() routine when our stdio was written for 4.4BSD, but it
looks pretty stillborn, and it's intended interface is not clear). Since
Linux and gnu libc have this interface, it seemed silly to bring yet
another one onto the scene.
1996-05-27 10:49:43 +00:00
|
|
|
static int
|
|
|
|
writehook(cookie, buf, len)
|
|
|
|
void *cookie;
|
1996-06-22 10:34:15 +00:00
|
|
|
const char *buf;
|
Add an implementation of the gnu-ish asprintf() and vasprintf(). They are
not based on gpl'ed code, just prototype and usage. I'm not 100% certain
they behave the same while the system is in trouble (eg: malloc() failing)
but in those circumstances all bets would be off anyway.
These routines work like sprintf() and vsprintf(), except that instead of
using a fixed buffer, they allocate memory and return it to the user
and it's the user's responsibility to free() it. They have allocate as
much memory as they need (and can get), so the size of strings it can deal
with is limited only by the amount of memory it can malloc() on your
behalf.
There are a few gpl'ed programs starting to use this interface, and it's
becoming more common with the scares about security risks with sprintf().
I dont like the look of the code that the various programs (including
cvs, gdb, libg++, etc) provide if configure can't find it on the system.
It should be possible to modify the stdio core code to provide this
interface more efficiently, I was more worried about having something
that worked and was secure. :-) (I noticed that there was once intended
to be a smprintf() routine when our stdio was written for 4.4BSD, but it
looks pretty stillborn, and it's intended interface is not clear). Since
Linux and gnu libc have this interface, it seemed silly to bring yet
another one onto the scene.
1996-05-27 10:49:43 +00:00
|
|
|
int len;
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
struct bufcookie *h = (struct bufcookie *)cookie;
|
1996-07-28 16:16:11 +00:00
|
|
|
char *newbuf;
|
Add an implementation of the gnu-ish asprintf() and vasprintf(). They are
not based on gpl'ed code, just prototype and usage. I'm not 100% certain
they behave the same while the system is in trouble (eg: malloc() failing)
but in those circumstances all bets would be off anyway.
These routines work like sprintf() and vsprintf(), except that instead of
using a fixed buffer, they allocate memory and return it to the user
and it's the user's responsibility to free() it. They have allocate as
much memory as they need (and can get), so the size of strings it can deal
with is limited only by the amount of memory it can malloc() on your
behalf.
There are a few gpl'ed programs starting to use this interface, and it's
becoming more common with the scares about security risks with sprintf().
I dont like the look of the code that the various programs (including
cvs, gdb, libg++, etc) provide if configure can't find it on the system.
It should be possible to modify the stdio core code to provide this
interface more efficiently, I was more worried about having something
that worked and was secure. :-) (I noticed that there was once intended
to be a smprintf() routine when our stdio was written for 4.4BSD, but it
looks pretty stillborn, and it's intended interface is not clear). Since
Linux and gnu libc have this interface, it seemed silly to bring yet
another one onto the scene.
1996-05-27 10:49:43 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (len == 0)
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (len > h->left) {
|
|
|
|
/* grow malloc region */
|
1996-07-28 16:16:11 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* XXX this is linearly expanded, which is slow for obscenely
|
|
|
|
* large strings.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
Add an implementation of the gnu-ish asprintf() and vasprintf(). They are
not based on gpl'ed code, just prototype and usage. I'm not 100% certain
they behave the same while the system is in trouble (eg: malloc() failing)
but in those circumstances all bets would be off anyway.
These routines work like sprintf() and vsprintf(), except that instead of
using a fixed buffer, they allocate memory and return it to the user
and it's the user's responsibility to free() it. They have allocate as
much memory as they need (and can get), so the size of strings it can deal
with is limited only by the amount of memory it can malloc() on your
behalf.
There are a few gpl'ed programs starting to use this interface, and it's
becoming more common with the scares about security risks with sprintf().
I dont like the look of the code that the various programs (including
cvs, gdb, libg++, etc) provide if configure can't find it on the system.
It should be possible to modify the stdio core code to provide this
interface more efficiently, I was more worried about having something
that worked and was secure. :-) (I noticed that there was once intended
to be a smprintf() routine when our stdio was written for 4.4BSD, but it
looks pretty stillborn, and it's intended interface is not clear). Since
Linux and gnu libc have this interface, it seemed silly to bring yet
another one onto the scene.
1996-05-27 10:49:43 +00:00
|
|
|
h->left = h->left + len + CHUNK_SPARE;
|
|
|
|
h->size = h->size + len + CHUNK_SPARE;
|
1996-07-28 16:16:11 +00:00
|
|
|
newbuf = realloc(h->base, h->size);
|
|
|
|
if (newbuf == NULL) {
|
|
|
|
free(h->base);
|
|
|
|
h->base = NULL;
|
Add an implementation of the gnu-ish asprintf() and vasprintf(). They are
not based on gpl'ed code, just prototype and usage. I'm not 100% certain
they behave the same while the system is in trouble (eg: malloc() failing)
but in those circumstances all bets would be off anyway.
These routines work like sprintf() and vsprintf(), except that instead of
using a fixed buffer, they allocate memory and return it to the user
and it's the user's responsibility to free() it. They have allocate as
much memory as they need (and can get), so the size of strings it can deal
with is limited only by the amount of memory it can malloc() on your
behalf.
There are a few gpl'ed programs starting to use this interface, and it's
becoming more common with the scares about security risks with sprintf().
I dont like the look of the code that the various programs (including
cvs, gdb, libg++, etc) provide if configure can't find it on the system.
It should be possible to modify the stdio core code to provide this
interface more efficiently, I was more worried about having something
that worked and was secure. :-) (I noticed that there was once intended
to be a smprintf() routine when our stdio was written for 4.4BSD, but it
looks pretty stillborn, and it's intended interface is not clear). Since
Linux and gnu libc have this interface, it seemed silly to bring yet
another one onto the scene.
1996-05-27 10:49:43 +00:00
|
|
|
return (-1);
|
1996-07-28 16:16:11 +00:00
|
|
|
} else
|
|
|
|
h->base = newbuf;
|
Add an implementation of the gnu-ish asprintf() and vasprintf(). They are
not based on gpl'ed code, just prototype and usage. I'm not 100% certain
they behave the same while the system is in trouble (eg: malloc() failing)
but in those circumstances all bets would be off anyway.
These routines work like sprintf() and vsprintf(), except that instead of
using a fixed buffer, they allocate memory and return it to the user
and it's the user's responsibility to free() it. They have allocate as
much memory as they need (and can get), so the size of strings it can deal
with is limited only by the amount of memory it can malloc() on your
behalf.
There are a few gpl'ed programs starting to use this interface, and it's
becoming more common with the scares about security risks with sprintf().
I dont like the look of the code that the various programs (including
cvs, gdb, libg++, etc) provide if configure can't find it on the system.
It should be possible to modify the stdio core code to provide this
interface more efficiently, I was more worried about having something
that worked and was secure. :-) (I noticed that there was once intended
to be a smprintf() routine when our stdio was written for 4.4BSD, but it
looks pretty stillborn, and it's intended interface is not clear). Since
Linux and gnu libc have this interface, it seemed silly to bring yet
another one onto the scene.
1996-05-27 10:49:43 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
/* "write" it */
|
1996-06-22 10:34:15 +00:00
|
|
|
(void)memcpy(h->base + h->size - h->left, buf, (size_t)len);
|
Add an implementation of the gnu-ish asprintf() and vasprintf(). They are
not based on gpl'ed code, just prototype and usage. I'm not 100% certain
they behave the same while the system is in trouble (eg: malloc() failing)
but in those circumstances all bets would be off anyway.
These routines work like sprintf() and vsprintf(), except that instead of
using a fixed buffer, they allocate memory and return it to the user
and it's the user's responsibility to free() it. They have allocate as
much memory as they need (and can get), so the size of strings it can deal
with is limited only by the amount of memory it can malloc() on your
behalf.
There are a few gpl'ed programs starting to use this interface, and it's
becoming more common with the scares about security risks with sprintf().
I dont like the look of the code that the various programs (including
cvs, gdb, libg++, etc) provide if configure can't find it on the system.
It should be possible to modify the stdio core code to provide this
interface more efficiently, I was more worried about having something
that worked and was secure. :-) (I noticed that there was once intended
to be a smprintf() routine when our stdio was written for 4.4BSD, but it
looks pretty stillborn, and it's intended interface is not clear). Since
Linux and gnu libc have this interface, it seemed silly to bring yet
another one onto the scene.
1996-05-27 10:49:43 +00:00
|
|
|
h->left -= len;
|
1996-07-28 16:16:11 +00:00
|
|
|
return (len);
|
Add an implementation of the gnu-ish asprintf() and vasprintf(). They are
not based on gpl'ed code, just prototype and usage. I'm not 100% certain
they behave the same while the system is in trouble (eg: malloc() failing)
but in those circumstances all bets would be off anyway.
These routines work like sprintf() and vsprintf(), except that instead of
using a fixed buffer, they allocate memory and return it to the user
and it's the user's responsibility to free() it. They have allocate as
much memory as they need (and can get), so the size of strings it can deal
with is limited only by the amount of memory it can malloc() on your
behalf.
There are a few gpl'ed programs starting to use this interface, and it's
becoming more common with the scares about security risks with sprintf().
I dont like the look of the code that the various programs (including
cvs, gdb, libg++, etc) provide if configure can't find it on the system.
It should be possible to modify the stdio core code to provide this
interface more efficiently, I was more worried about having something
that worked and was secure. :-) (I noticed that there was once intended
to be a smprintf() routine when our stdio was written for 4.4BSD, but it
looks pretty stillborn, and it's intended interface is not clear). Since
Linux and gnu libc have this interface, it seemed silly to bring yet
another one onto the scene.
1996-05-27 10:49:43 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
int
|
|
|
|
vasprintf(str, fmt, ap)
|
|
|
|
char **str;
|
|
|
|
const char *fmt;
|
|
|
|
va_list ap;
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
int ret;
|
|
|
|
FILE *f;
|
|
|
|
struct bufcookie h;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
h.base = malloc(CHUNK_SPARE);
|
|
|
|
if (h.base == NULL)
|
|
|
|
return (-1);
|
|
|
|
h.size = CHUNK_SPARE;
|
|
|
|
h.left = CHUNK_SPARE;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
f = funopen(&h, NULL, writehook, NULL, NULL);
|
|
|
|
if (f == NULL) {
|
|
|
|
free(h.base);
|
|
|
|
return (-1);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
ret = vfprintf(f, fmt, ap);
|
|
|
|
fclose(f);
|
|
|
|
if (ret < 0) {
|
|
|
|
free(h.base);
|
|
|
|
return (-1);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (h.base == NULL) /* failed to realloc in writehook */
|
|
|
|
return (-1);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
h.base[h.size - h.left] = '\0';
|
1996-06-22 10:34:15 +00:00
|
|
|
*str = realloc(h.base, (size_t)(h.size - h.left + 1));
|
Add an implementation of the gnu-ish asprintf() and vasprintf(). They are
not based on gpl'ed code, just prototype and usage. I'm not 100% certain
they behave the same while the system is in trouble (eg: malloc() failing)
but in those circumstances all bets would be off anyway.
These routines work like sprintf() and vsprintf(), except that instead of
using a fixed buffer, they allocate memory and return it to the user
and it's the user's responsibility to free() it. They have allocate as
much memory as they need (and can get), so the size of strings it can deal
with is limited only by the amount of memory it can malloc() on your
behalf.
There are a few gpl'ed programs starting to use this interface, and it's
becoming more common with the scares about security risks with sprintf().
I dont like the look of the code that the various programs (including
cvs, gdb, libg++, etc) provide if configure can't find it on the system.
It should be possible to modify the stdio core code to provide this
interface more efficiently, I was more worried about having something
that worked and was secure. :-) (I noticed that there was once intended
to be a smprintf() routine when our stdio was written for 4.4BSD, but it
looks pretty stillborn, and it's intended interface is not clear). Since
Linux and gnu libc have this interface, it seemed silly to bring yet
another one onto the scene.
1996-05-27 10:49:43 +00:00
|
|
|
if (*str == NULL) /* failed to realloc it to actual size */
|
1996-07-28 16:16:11 +00:00
|
|
|
*str = h.base; /* return oversize buffer */
|
Add an implementation of the gnu-ish asprintf() and vasprintf(). They are
not based on gpl'ed code, just prototype and usage. I'm not 100% certain
they behave the same while the system is in trouble (eg: malloc() failing)
but in those circumstances all bets would be off anyway.
These routines work like sprintf() and vsprintf(), except that instead of
using a fixed buffer, they allocate memory and return it to the user
and it's the user's responsibility to free() it. They have allocate as
much memory as they need (and can get), so the size of strings it can deal
with is limited only by the amount of memory it can malloc() on your
behalf.
There are a few gpl'ed programs starting to use this interface, and it's
becoming more common with the scares about security risks with sprintf().
I dont like the look of the code that the various programs (including
cvs, gdb, libg++, etc) provide if configure can't find it on the system.
It should be possible to modify the stdio core code to provide this
interface more efficiently, I was more worried about having something
that worked and was secure. :-) (I noticed that there was once intended
to be a smprintf() routine when our stdio was written for 4.4BSD, but it
looks pretty stillborn, and it's intended interface is not clear). Since
Linux and gnu libc have this interface, it seemed silly to bring yet
another one onto the scene.
1996-05-27 10:49:43 +00:00
|
|
|
return (ret);
|
|
|
|
}
|