2002-09-26 13:11:24 +00:00
|
|
|
/* $OpenBSD: vasprintf.c,v 1.4 1998/06/21 22:13:47 millert Exp $ */
|
1998-07-08 00:44:56 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Copyright (c) 1997 Todd C. Miller <Todd.Miller@courtesan.com>
|
|
|
|
|
* All rights reserved.
|
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
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* 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.
|
1998-07-08 00:44:56 +00:00
|
|
|
* 3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products
|
|
|
|
|
* derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
|
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
|
|
|
*
|
1998-07-08 00:44:56 +00:00
|
|
|
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``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 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.
|
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
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
|
2002-03-22 21:53:29 +00:00
|
|
|
#include <sys/cdefs.h>
|
|
|
|
|
__FBSDID("$FreeBSD$");
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <stdio.h>
|
|
|
|
|
#include <stdlib.h>
|
1998-07-08 00:44:56 +00:00
|
|
|
#include <errno.h>
|
2001-01-24 13:01:12 +00:00
|
|
|
#include "local.h"
|
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;
|
2002-08-21 16:20:02 +00:00
|
|
|
__va_list ap;
|
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 ret;
|
1998-07-08 00:44:56 +00:00
|
|
|
FILE f;
|
2002-08-13 09:30:41 +00:00
|
|
|
struct __sFILEX ext;
|
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
|
|
|
|
1998-07-08 00:44:56 +00:00
|
|
|
f._file = -1;
|
|
|
|
|
f._flags = __SWR | __SSTR | __SALC;
|
|
|
|
|
f._bf._base = f._p = (unsigned char *)malloc(128);
|
2002-09-26 13:11:24 +00:00
|
|
|
if (f._bf._base == NULL) {
|
|
|
|
|
*str = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
errno = ENOMEM;
|
|
|
|
|
return (-1);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
2002-08-19 03:52:36 +00:00
|
|
|
f._bf._size = f._w = 127; /* Leave room for the NUL */
|
2002-08-13 09:30:41 +00:00
|
|
|
f._extra = &ext;
|
|
|
|
|
INITEXTRA(&f);
|
2001-01-24 13:01:12 +00:00
|
|
|
ret = __vfprintf(&f, fmt, ap);
|
2002-09-26 13:11:24 +00:00
|
|
|
if (ret < 0) {
|
2002-09-26 07:55:18 +00:00
|
|
|
free(f._bf._base);
|
2002-09-26 13:11:24 +00:00
|
|
|
*str = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
errno = ENOMEM;
|
|
|
|
|
return (-1);
|
2002-09-26 07:55:18 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
2002-09-26 13:11:24 +00:00
|
|
|
*f._p = '\0';
|
|
|
|
|
*str = (char *)f._bf._base;
|
|
|
|
|
return (ret);
|
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
|
|
|
}
|
