Fixing This Took Too Long

Content Google Close tabs? X You are about to close 3293 tabs. Are you sure you want to continue? Warn me when I attempt to close multiple tabs Close Tabs Cancel

Ah yes, the sacred developer survival instinct! Just like checking for cars on a one-way street despite the rules saying they only come from one direction, a real developer never trusts the documentation, API specs, or that "perfectly working" legacy code. Sure, the function says it returns a string—but is it really a string or some unholy string-like object waiting to explode your production server? Trust issues aren't a bug in our profession—they're a feature!

Content Posted in rDiWHY by uImpossible-Ad-3060 reddit

So someone told you stack allocation is faster than heap allocation, and you took that advice a bit too literally. The function allocates a char array on the stack and then returns a pointer to it. Problem? That stack memory gets deallocated the moment the function returns, so you're handing back a pointer to memory that's already been reclaimed. It's like giving someone directions to a house that's been demolished. The comment "delicious segfault awaits" is chef's kiss accurate. Whoever tries to dereference that returned pointer is in for undefined behavior territory—could be garbage data, could be a crash, could be nothing at all until production when it spectacularly explodes. Stack allocation is faster, but returning stack-allocated memory is basically writing a check your program can't cash. Classic case of knowing just enough to be dangerous. Should've used malloc or just passed a buffer as a parameter. But hey, at least it compiles! (with warnings you definitely ignored)

Content rAskReddit uSarazar 11h What are you sick of explaining? 10 11 14 16 20 19 4 30.3k 23.2k Share Award BEST COMMENTS joebogan : 10h -PMmeyourrecipes- 8h 5 Awards I'm a programmer, I write programs. I do not know how to fix your laptop that won't turn on. Reply 11.3k

Ah, the classic security blunder that makes security professionals spit coffee. The code shows "brute-force attack protection" that only triggers the error message when the password is correct AND it's the first login attempt. So basically, it tells attackers "congrats, you got the right password, just try again!" Meanwhile, the kid who wrote this monstrosity sits there with a smug grin while the entire IT department has a collective aneurysm. This is why we can't have nice things in cybersecurity.