From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtp63.i.mail.ru (smtp63.i.mail.ru [217.69.128.43])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DADFF469710
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Tue, 12 May 2020 23:30:46 +0300 (MSK)
References: <cover.1589240704.git.v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
 <449685df941ca9a14e102738da413e737e559aea.1589240704.git.v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
 <20200512151324.GA2219@grain>
From: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <87a91d28-3c4c-a37e-40c0-595faa0ea0d5@tarantool.org>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 22:30:24 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200512151324.GA2219@grain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2/5] decimal: provide MP_DECIMAL
	extension serializer
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org

Hi! Thanks for the review!

On 12/05/2020 17:13, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 01:45:49AM +0200, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote:
>> +
>> +int
>> +mp_snprint_decimal(char *buf, int size, const char **data, uint32_t len)
>> +{
>> +	decimal_t d;
>> +	if (decimal_unpack(data, len, &d) == NULL)
>> +		return -1;
>> +	return snprintf(buf, size, "%s", decimal_to_string(&d));
>> +}
> 
> This looks suspicious -- if buffer size is not enough the snprintf
> returns not the number of bytes really written but rather a number
> of bytes needed to write the desired string. Are you sure it is
> safe to return snprintf result here?

Yes, I am sure it is safe and correct. mp_snprint() returns exactly this -
an snprintf-like result. So all printers, used inside of it, should do the
same. At least this is what is documented and covered by existing tests.