[committed] libstdc++: Replace operator>>(istream&, char*) [LWG 2499]

Jakub Jelinek jakub@redhat.com
Thu Aug 6 10:12:28 GMT 2020

On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 04:31:08PM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
> I've always found the second argument to __builtin_object_size
> confusing for types above 1.  I don't see anything wrong in
> the diff but I believe the most useful results are with type 1
> for string functions and type 0 for raw memory functions like
> memcpy (that's what _FORTIFY_SOURCE uses for the two sets of
> functions).  In type 2 when the result is zero it means one of
> two things: either the size of the array couldn't be determined
> or it really is zero.  That's less than helpful in cases like:
>   char a[8];
>   strcpy (a + 8, s);
> where it prevents detecting the buffer overflow.

I don't know what is confusing about it.
With the 0/1 arguments bos returns an upper bound for the object size
(and the don't know value is the maximum in that case, i.e. (size_t)-1),
while with 2/3 arguments bos returns an lower bound for the object size
(and thus the don't know value is the minimum value, i.e. 0).
The 2/3 modes are obviously not something you want to use in strcpy etc.
implementation, in those cases you want to abort the program only when
it is guaranteed to be invalid, i.e. when it will certainly overflow
the available size in any case, while with the 2/3 modes it would abort already
if there is a possibility the object might not be big enough.
One can e.g. use both modes to check if the object is known to have exactly
a particular size, when
__builtin_object_size (ptr, 0) == __builtin_object_size (ptr, 2)
and the bos returns say 25, then you know it is exactly 25 bytes.
E.g. if one has:
  ptr = flag ? malloc (32) : malloc (64);
  x[0] = __builtin_object_size (ptr, 0);
  x[1] = __builtin_object_size (ptr, 2);
then x[0] will be 64 as the maximum and x[1] to 32 as the minimum (of course
unless flag can be folded to constant, then both would be the same depending
on to which constant it is folded).


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list