sprintf_s with a buffer too small

Question

The following code causes an error and kills my application. It makes sense as the buffer is only 10 bytes long and the text is 22 bytes long (buffer overflow).

char buffer[10];    
int length = sprintf_s( buffer, 10, "1234567890.1234567890." ); 

How do I catch this error so I can report it instead of crashing my application?

Edit:

After reading the comments below I went with _snprintf_s. If it returns a -1 value then the buffer was not updated.

length = _snprintf_s( buffer, 10, 9, "123456789" );
printf( "1) Length=%d\n", length ); // Length == 9

length = _snprintf_s( buffer, 10, 9, "1234567890.1234567890." );
printf( "2) Length=%d\n", length ); // Length == -1

length = _snprintf_s( buffer, 10, 10, "1234567890.1234567890." );
printf( "3) Length=%d\n", length ); // Crash, it needs room for the NULL char 

Answer 1

Instead of sprintf_s, you could use snprintf (a.k.a _snprintf on windows).

#ifdef WIN32
#define snprintf _snprintf
#endif

char buffer[10];    
int length = snprintf( buffer, 10, "1234567890.1234567890." );
// unix snprintf returns length output would actually require;
// windows _snprintf returns actual output length if output fits, else negative
if (length >= sizeof(buffer) || length<0) 
{
    /* error handling */
}

Answer 2

It's by design. The entire point of sprintf_s, and other functions from the *_s family, is to catch buffer overrun errors and treat them as precondition violations. This means that they're not really meant to be recoverable. This is designed to catch errors only - you shouldn't ever call sprintf_s if you know the string can be too large for a destination buffer. In that case, use strlen first to check and decide whether you need to trim.

Answer 3

This works with VC++ and is even safer than using snprintf (and certainly safer than _snprintf):

void TestString(const char* pEvil)
{
  char buffer[100];
  _snprintf_s(buffer, _TRUNCATE, "Some data: %s\n", pEvil);
}

The _TRUNCATE flag indicates that the string should be truncated. In this form the size of the buffer isn't actually passed in, which (paradoxically!) is what makes it so safe. The compiler uses template magic to infer the buffer size which means it cannot be incorrectly specified (a surprisingly common error). This technique can be applied to create other safe string wrappers, as described in my blog post here: https://randomascii.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/stop-using-strncpy-already/

Answer 4

From MSDN:

The other main difference between sprintf_s and sprintf is that sprintf_s takes a length parameter specifying the size of the output buffer in characters. If the buffer is too small for the text being printed then the buffer is set to an empty string and the invalid parameter handler is invoked. Unlike snprintf, sprintf_s guarantees that the buffer will be null-terminated (unless the buffer size is zero).

So ideally what you've written should work correctly.

Answer 5

Looks like you're writing on MSVC of some sort?

I think the MSDN docs for sprintf_s says that it assert dies, so I'm not too sure if you can programmatically catch that.

As LBushkin suggested, you're much better off using classes that manage the strings.

Answer 6

See section 6.6.1 of TR24731 which is the ISO C Committee version of the functionality implemented by Microsoft. It provides functions set_constraint_handler(), abort_constraint_handler() and ignore_constraint_handler() functions.

There are comments from Pavel Minaev suggesting that the Microsoft implementation does not adhere to the TR24731 proposal (which is a 'Type 2 Tech Report'), so you may not be able to intervene, or you may have to do something different from what the TR indicates should be done. For that, scrutinize MSDN.