From: Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com>
To: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Ping 4: [PATCH] more out of bounds checking improvements
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 15:36:16 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <970238f5-d849-78c7-75af-a4a92e2595f5@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <42c63456-4775-1c55-7e16-8fefa3275f56@gmail.com>
Florian reminded me that this patch (first posted on 10/26 last
year) is still outstanding so I'd like to try to ping it again.
Florian and Joseph provided some initial comments but not a formal
approval.
Martin
On 1/10/21 1:44 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Ping: still looking for an approval of the patch below before
> tomorrow's freeze:
> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2020-December/120586.html
>
> On 1/4/21 8:54 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> Joseph or anyone else: is the patch below okay to commit? I'd like
>> to include it in the upcoming release.
>>
>> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2020-December/120586.html
>>
>> On 12/18/20 9:56 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> Ping: Does the last patch look good enough to commit?
>>> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2020-December/120586.html
>>>
>>> On 12/9/20 2:46 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>> On 10/26/20 10:08 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2020, Martin Sebor via Libc-alpha wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The patch introduces the _L_tmpnam macro to avoid polluting
>>>>>> the POSIX <unistd.h> namespace with L_tmpnam when the latter is
>>>>>> only supposed to be defined in <stdio.h>. This in turn causes
>>>>>> the a number of POSIX conformance test failures that I haven't
>>>>>> been able to figure how to deal with and need some help with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In file included from ../include/unistd.h:2,
>>>>>> from /tmp/tmpzm39v4n3/test.c:1:
>>>>>> ../posix/unistd.h:1159:32: error: ‘_L_ctermid’ undeclared here
>>>>>> (not in a
>>>>>> function)
>>>>>> extern char *ctermid (char __s[_L_ctermid]) __THROW
>>>>>> ^~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I expected adding the new macros to stdio-common/stdio_lim.h.in
>>>>>> would do the trick but clearly something else is needed and I'm
>>>>>> at a lost as to what that might be. I haven't been able to find
>>>>>
>>>>> <unistd.h> doesn't include <bits/stdio_lim.h>, and you're making
>>>>> <unistd.h> use _L_ctermid, and you're only defining _L_ctermid in
>>>>> <bits/stdio_lim.h>. You need to define it in a header that <unistd.h>
>>>>> includes - which also needs to be one whose contents are
>>>>> namespace-clean
>>>>> for inclusion in <unistd.h> (which <bits/stdio_lim.h> isn't).
>>>>>
>>>>> The obvious way would be to have a new installed (i.e. add to
>>>>> "headers" in
>>>>> the relevant Makefile) header for the new macros that can be
>>>>> included in
>>>>> both <stdio.h> and <unistd.h>. Suggestion: the existing scheme for
>>>>> automatic generation of bits/stdio_lim.h is overly complicated, it
>>>>> would
>>>>> be better to use sysdeps headers in the normal way like for other
>>>>> bits/
>>>>> headers where the values may depend on the glibc configuration (and
>>>>> then
>>>>> to have testcases that verify consistently of OPEN_MAX and
>>>>> FOPEN_MAX / of
>>>>> PATH_MAX and FILENAME_MAX, when both are defined).
>>>>
>>>> I don't know enough about the Glibc build infrastructure to
>>>> understand your suggestion but either approach sounds more involved
>>>> than I have cycles for so I propose the scaled patch instead, without
>>>> the ctermid and cuserid changes (and without the nonnull attribute
>>>> on readv/writev(*)). Hopefully someone with more experience with
>>>> the existing scheme will find a way to define the two macros and
>>>> make use of them to enable the detection for these two functions
>>>> as well.
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> [*] I'll submit that patch separately.
>>>
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-22 21:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-26 15:01 Martin Sebor
2020-10-26 15:41 ` Florian Weimer
2020-12-09 0:18 ` Martin Sebor
2020-10-26 16:08 ` Joseph Myers
2020-12-09 21:46 ` Martin Sebor
2020-12-18 16:56 ` Ping: " Martin Sebor
2021-01-04 15:54 ` Ping 2: " Martin Sebor
2021-01-10 20:44 ` Ping 3: " Martin Sebor
2021-04-22 21:36 ` Martin Sebor [this message]
2021-04-23 10:31 ` Florian Weimer
2021-04-23 15:06 ` Martin Sebor
2021-04-23 16:01 ` Florian Weimer
2021-05-04 19:58 ` Martin Sebor
2021-05-06 17:03 ` Martin Sebor
2021-05-06 18:15 ` Joseph Myers
2021-05-06 19:40 ` Martin Sebor
2021-05-07 9:20 ` Andreas Schwab
2021-05-07 9:24 ` Florian Weimer
2021-05-07 11:48 ` Andreas Schwab
2021-05-07 19:30 ` Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
2021-05-10 17:23 ` Joseph Myers
2021-05-10 8:45 ` Florian Weimer
2021-05-10 17:14 ` Martin Sebor
2021-05-10 17:49 ` Florian Weimer
2021-05-10 18:37 ` Martin Sebor
2021-05-10 19:22 ` Andreas Schwab
2021-05-10 19:50 ` Florian Weimer
2021-05-10 20:31 ` Martin Sebor
2021-05-11 10:53 ` Florian Weimer
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=970238f5-d849-78c7-75af-a4a92e2595f5@gmail.com \
--to=msebor@gmail.com \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=joseph@codesourcery.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.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).