From: Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xry111.site>
To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org>,
Zack Weinberg <zack@owlfolio.org>,
GNU libc development <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Cc: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>,
Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>,
"'Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)'" <alx.manpages@gmail.com>,
Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] libio: Add nonnull attribute for most FILE * arguments in stdio.h
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 02:41:05 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1efbe0b2dd8fefffc945c6734222c7d6e04cf465.camel@xry111.site> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ed86d013-1df5-2880-3e39-0caf8f49a999@gotplt.org>
On Mon, 2023-07-10 at 13:51 -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 2023-07-10 13:12, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023, at 12:13 PM, Xi Ruoyao via Libc-alpha wrote:
> > > During the review of a GCC analyzer test case, we found most stdio
> > > functions accepting a FILE * argument expect it to be nonnull and just
> > > segfault when the argument is NULL. Add nonnull attribute for them.
> >
> > I think this patchset has a high risk of breaking application code,
> > because "this function will promptly crash if passed a NULL pointer" is
> > a very different property from "any code path that would cause this
> > function to be passed a NULL pointer is necessarily unreachable."
> >
> > If we take it at all -- and my current gut feeling is that we
> > *shouldn't* -- we should do so early in a release cycle to give us the
> > best chance of discovering broken applications before the release.
>
> Thanks for your comment; it made me take a closer look at this. I
> suppose it makes sense to push it in right after we tag 2.38 then, so
> that there's the rest of the year to test and fix broken applications
> before 2.39. It may make sense to backport to the release branch for
> distributions if we find it to be stable enough.
>
> Would it be more acceptable to you if this gets wrapped into fortify,
> i.e. it gets enabled if _FORTIFY_SOURCE is defined? In fact, the
> wrappers in stdio2.h and the _chk variants of those functions should
> likely also get the __nonnull annotation.
But it then means w/o -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE we'll still not see the warning,
and GCC analyzer developers will still implement a lot of special cases
:(.
Maybe we should have a weaker version of nonnull which only performs the
diagnostic, not the optimization. But it looks like they hate the idea:
https://gcc.gnu.org/PR110617.
--
Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xry111.site>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-10 18:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-10 16:13 Xi Ruoyao
2023-07-10 17:12 ` Zack Weinberg
2023-07-10 17:27 ` Xi Ruoyao
2023-07-10 19:06 ` Zack Weinberg
2023-07-10 19:31 ` Xi Ruoyao
2023-07-10 17:51 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2023-07-10 18:41 ` Xi Ruoyao [this message]
2023-07-10 20:14 ` _Nullable and _Nonnull in GCC's analyzer (was: [PATCH v5] libio: Add nonnull attribute for most FILE * arguments in stdio.h) Alejandro Colomar
2023-07-10 20:16 ` Alejandro Colomar
2023-08-08 10:01 ` Martin Uecker
2023-08-09 0:14 ` enh
2023-08-09 1:11 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2023-08-09 7:26 ` Martin Uecker
2023-08-09 10:42 ` ISO C's [static] (was: _Nullable and _Nonnull in GCC's analyzer) Alejandro Colomar
2023-08-09 12:03 ` Martin Uecker
2023-08-09 12:37 ` Alejandro Colomar
2023-08-09 14:24 ` Martin Uecker
2023-08-09 13:46 ` Xi Ruoyao
2023-08-11 23:34 ` _Nullable and _Nonnull in GCC's analyzer (was: [PATCH v5] libio: Add nonnull attribute for most FILE * arguments in stdio.h) enh
2023-07-10 18:56 ` [PATCH v5] libio: Add nonnull attribute for most FILE * arguments in stdio.h Zack Weinberg
2023-07-10 19:31 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2023-07-10 19:35 ` Xi Ruoyao
2023-07-10 19:46 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2023-07-10 20:23 ` Xi Ruoyao
2023-07-10 20:33 ` Jeff Law
2023-07-10 20:44 ` Xi Ruoyao
2023-07-10 20:55 ` Zack Weinberg
2023-07-10 21:03 ` Xi Ruoyao
2023-07-10 21:22 ` Zack Weinberg
2023-07-10 21:33 ` Xi Ruoyao
2023-07-11 19:12 ` Zack Weinberg
2023-07-11 20:12 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2023-07-12 8:59 ` Xi Ruoyao
2023-07-10 22:09 ` Paul Eggert
2023-07-11 19:18 ` Zack Weinberg
2023-07-11 20:45 ` Jeff Law
2023-07-11 23:59 ` Paul Eggert
2023-07-12 2:40 ` Jeff Law
2023-07-10 22:48 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2023-07-11 0:45 ` Sam James
2023-07-10 21:51 ` Jeff Law
2023-07-11 13:03 ` Cristian Rodríguez
2023-07-10 22:34 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2023-07-10 22:59 ` Jeff Law
2023-07-11 0:51 ` Sam James
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1efbe0b2dd8fefffc945c6734222c7d6e04cf465.camel@xry111.site \
--to=xry111@xry111.site \
--cc=adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org \
--cc=alx.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=carlos@redhat.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=schwab@suse.de \
--cc=siddhesh@gotplt.org \
--cc=zack@owlfolio.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).