[c] Why should you use strncpy instead of strcpy?

Edit: I've added the source for the example.

I came across this example:

char source[MAX] = "123456789";
char source1[MAX] = "123456789";
char destination[MAX] = "abcdefg";
char destination1[MAX] = "abcdefg";
char *return_string;
int index = 5;

/* This is how strcpy works */
printf("destination is originally = '%s'\n", destination);
return_string = strcpy(destination, source);
printf("after strcpy, dest becomes '%s'\n\n", destination);

/* This is how strncpy works */
printf( "destination1 is originally = '%s'\n", destination1 );
return_string = strncpy( destination1, source1, index );
printf( "After strncpy, destination1 becomes '%s'\n", destination1 );

Which produced this output:

destination is originally = 'abcdefg'
After strcpy, destination becomes '123456789'

destination1 is originally = 'abcdefg'
After strncpy, destination1 becomes '12345fg'

Which makes me wonder why anyone would want this effect. It looks like it would be confusing. This program makes me think you could basically copy over someone's name (eg. Tom Brokaw) with Tom Bro763.

What are the advantages of using strncpy() over strcpy()?

strncpy is NOT safer than strcpy, it just trades one type of bugs with another. In C, when handling C strings, you need to know the size of your buffers, there is no way around it. strncpy was justified for the directory thing mentioned by others, but otherwise, you should never use it:

• if you know the length of your string and buffer, why using strncpy ? It is a waste of computing power at best (adding useless 0)
• if you don't know the lengths, then you risk silently truncating your strings, which is not much better than a buffer overflow

The strncpy() function is the safer one: you have to pass the maximum length the destination buffer can accept. Otherwise it could happen that the source string is not correctly 0 terminated, in which case the strcpy() function could write more characters to destination, corrupting anything which is in the memory after the destination buffer. This is the buffer-overrun problem used in many exploits

Also for POSIX API functions like read() which does not put the terminating 0 in the buffer, but returns the number of bytes read, you will either manually put the 0, or copy it using strncpy().

In your example code, index is actually not an index, but a count - it tells how many characters at most to copy from source to destination. If there is no null byte among the first n bytes of source, the string placed in destination will not be null terminated

This may be used in many other scenarios, where you need to copy only a portion of your original string to the destination. Using strncpy() you can copy a limited portion of the original string as opposed by strcpy(). I see the code you have put up comes from publib.boulder.ibm.com.

strncpy fills the destination up with '\0' for the size of source, eventhough the size of the destination is smaller....

manpage:

If the length of src is less than n, strncpy() pads the remainder of dest with null bytes.

and not only the remainder...also after this until n characters is reached. And thus you get an overflow... (see the man page implementation)

the strncpy is a safer version of strcpy as a matter of fact you should never use strcpy because its potential buffer overflow vulnerability which makes you system vulnerable to all sort of attacks

What you're looking for is the function strlcpy() which does terminate always the string with 0 and initializes the buffer. It also is able to detect overflows. Only problem, it's not (really) portable and is present only on some systems (BSD, Solaris). The problem with this function is that it opens another can of worms as can be seen by the discussions on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strlcpy

My personal opinion is that it is vastly more useful than strncpy() and strcpy(). It has better performance and is a good companion to snprintf(). For platforms which do not have it, it is relatively easy to implement. (for the developement phase of a application I substitute these two function (snprintf() and strlcpy()) with a trapping version which aborts brutally the program on buffer overflows or truncations. This allows to catch quickly the worst offenders. Especially if you work on a codebase from someone else.

EDIT: strlcpy() can be implemented easily:

size_t strlcpy(char *dst, const char *src, size_t dstsize)
{
  size_t len = strlen(src);
  if(dstsize) {
    size_t bl = (len < dstsize-1 ? len : dstsize-1);
    ((char*)memcpy(dst, src, bl))[bl] = 0;
  }
  return len;
}

While I know the intent behind strncpy, it is not really a good function. Avoid both. Raymond Chen explains.

Personally, my conclusion is simply to avoid strncpy and all its friends if you are dealing with null-terminated strings. Despite the "str" in the name, these functions do not produce null-terminated strings. They convert a null-terminated string into a raw character buffer. Using them where a null-terminated string is expected as the second buffer is plain wrong. Not only do you fail to get proper null termination if the source is too long, but if the source is short you get unnecessary null padding.

See also Why is strncpy insecure?

That depends on our requirement. For windows users

We use strncpy whenever we don't want to copy entire string or we want to copy only n number of characters. But strcpy copies the entire string including terminating null character.

These links will help you more to know about strcpy and strncpy and where we can use.

about strcpy

about strncpy

The strncpy() function was designed with a very particular problem in mind: manipulating strings stored in the manner of original UNIX directory entries. These used a fixed sized array, and a nul-terminator was only used if the filename was shorter than the array.

That's what's behind the two oddities of strncpy():

• It doesn't put a nul-terminator on the destination if it is completely filled; and
• It always completely fills the destination, with nuls if necessary.

For a "safer strcpy()", you are better off using strncat() like so:

if (dest_size > 0)
{
    dest[0] = '\0';
    strncat(dest, source, dest_size - 1);
}

That will always nul-terminate the result, and won't copy more than necessary.