This is a rant. I've made it in various forms in various places over the years, and I think it's time to put it somewhere so I can point people at it, and stop repeating myself.

Here's the pebble in my shoe: people keep claiming that strncpy is a safer alternative to strcpy . It's not. It's a slower function that is not going to make you significantly safer.

The problem with strcpy is that it's somewhat easy to overflow the target array:

char src[] = "hello, world"; char dst[5]; strcpy(dst, src); // Oops.

The suggested alternative with strncpy would be this:

strncpy(dst, src, sizeof(dst));

strncpy gets the size of the destination array as a parameter, and can therefore make sure the string will fit there. Problem solved? Not so much.

Every time you do any string handling with C's native string types and functions, you need to make sure you have allocated enough memory for each string, you need to keep track of how much memory you've allocated, and you neet to make sure the zero byte ('NUL', '\0' ) is put there correctly. This is a lot of details to keep track of, and it's not surprising things sometimes go wrong.

If your arrays are allocated statically, which is the simplest, but least useful case, you need to something like this with strcpy :

if (strlen(src) + 1 > sizeof(dst)) panic(); // or however you want to handle your errors strcpy(dst, src);

The +1 after strlen is to make room for the zero byte (NUL, '\0' ) that is used in C to indicate the end of a string.

With strncpy , your code is slightly simpler. This is its attraction.

Problem is, this only works if dst is an array defined within the scope of the code. If, as is common, you have received dst as an argument to a function, sizeof(dst) is the size of a pointer to an element of the array, not the size of the array. So now you need to track the size explicitly in a second variable:

strncpy(dst, src, dst_size);

Further, strncpy has an unfortunate error handling mode: it merely fills the destination array and stops. It does not indicate failure in any way. It does not terminate the target array with a zero byte. Since all C string processing assume the zero byte is there, as soon as you try to use dst as a string, you're in trouble.

But luckily you can check for that before you call strncpy :

if (strlen(src) + 1 > dst_size) panic(); // or whatever strncpy(dst, src, dst_size);

By this time, the code is equally hard whether you use strcpy or strncpy . With strncpy you often waste some extra time, though, filling the unused parts of the target array with zero bytes: they're almost never necessary.

Alternatively, you can force the zero byte there yourself, silently truncating a string.

strncpy(dst, src, dst_size); dst[dst_size - 1] = '\0'; // let's hope dst_size > 0

If your string handling is OK with strings being randomly shorter than they should be, possibly you could replace all of them with empty strings, and save yourself a world of pain.

Instead of strncpy , use snprintf . It has sensible error behavior, and is much more versatile:

n = snprintf(dst, dst_size, "%s", src); if (n >= dst_size) panic();

snprintf still isn't very nice to use. It still requires you to allocate memory yourself, and keep track of the size of each array manually. It's also slower for small destination buffers (but faster for large ones).

The real solution is to abandon C's antiquated string handling, and use a more sensible helper library instead. There's a bunch of them around, though none have gained much popularity. I'm not going to name any of them, but just imagine how much nicer it would be to write code like this instead:

Dynstr *src = dynstr_new_from_cstring("hello, world

"); Dynstr *cat = dynstr_cat_many(src, src, src, src, src, NULL); Dynstr *dog = dynstr_substr(cat, 15, 5);

Let the library take care of memory allocations and related tracking, and concentrate on real problem solving instead.

We did this in Kannel, back in 1999, and it wiped out all the buffer overflow problems (until a co-worker decided it was "more efficient" to use native C strings instead, promptly introducing a buffer overflow).

All of this string handling is, of course, way nicer in higher level languages. In fact, whenever you need to deal with string handling in C, it is probably a sign that you should consider switching to a higher level language instead.

But whatever you do, stop claiming that strncpy is safe or solves any real problems strcpy has.

Update: Fixed "It does terminate" to say "It does not terminate". Thanks to Matthew Garrett for pointing that out.

Update2: Fixed example call to snprintf .