Lennart Poettering da6053d0a7 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		2018-04-27 14:29:06 +02:00
..
activate.c	tree-wide: be more careful with the type of array sizes	2018-04-27 14:29:06 +02:00