This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, jit]: Robustify vasprintf error checks
- From: David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>
- To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
- Cc: jit at gcc dot gnu dot org, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:55:43 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, jit]: Robustify vasprintf error checks
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAFULd4aGQqy9-g6AC-ZrNs3MaSKTB3q58BdbNbqaESSTo5ZtKA at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 17:53 +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
> As documented in [1] asprintf and vasprintf return:
>
> --quote--
> Return value:
>
> Both functions set *ret to be a pointer to a malloc()'d buffer
> sufficiently large to hold the formatted string. This pointer should
> be passed to free() to release the allocated storage when it is no
> longer needed.
>
> The integer value returned by these functions is the number of
> characters that were output to the newly allocated string (excluding
> the final '\0'). To put it differently, the return value will match
> that of strlen(*ret).
>
> Upon failure, the returned value will be -1, and *ret will be set to NULL.
>
> Note: Upon failure, other implementations may forget to set *ret and
> leave it in an undefined state. Some other implementations may always
> set *ret upon failure but forget to assign -1 for the return value in
> some edge cases.
> --/quote--
>
> Based on the note above, the attached patch robustifies vasprintf
> return value checks in jit/jit-recording.c. Actually, the same checks
> are already implemented in function oprint, around line 1655 in
> gengtype.c.
> 2015-02-25 Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
>
> * jit-recording.c (dump::write): Also check vasprintf return value.
> (recording::context::add_error_va): Ditto.
> (recording::string::from_printf): Ditto.
>
> The patch was bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu.
>
> OK for mainline?
Thanks.
I assume that we can rely that any vasprintf implementation manages on
failure to at least either write NULL to *ret or to return -1, even if
some of them fail to do both?
OK for trunk.
>
> [1] http://asprintf.insanecoding.org/
>
> Uros.