All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com>
To: Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>
Cc: grub-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make grub_strtol() "end" pointers have safer const qualifiers. (v2)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 10:42:45 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200224094245.rvqcexhgs5arbj3p@tomti.i.net-space.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200221213933.4037035-1-pjones@redhat.com>

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 04:39:33PM -0500, Peter Jones wrote:
> Currently the string functions grub_strtol(), grub_strtoul(), and
> grub_strtoull() don't declare the "end" pointer in such a way as to
> require the pointer itself or the character array to be immutable to the
> implementation, nor does the C standard do so in its similar functions,
> though it does require us not to change any of it.
>
> The typical declarations of these functions follow this pattern:
>
> long
> strtol(const char * restrict nptr, char ** restrict endptr, int base);
>
> Much of the reason for this is historic, and a discussion of that
> follows below, after the explanation of this change.  (GRUB currently
> does not include the "restrict" qualifiers, and we name the arguments a
> bit differently.)
>
> The implementation is semantically required to treat the character array
> as immutable, but such accidental modifications aren't stopped by the
> compiler, and the semantics for both the callers and the implementation
> of these functions are sometimes also helped by adding that requirement.
>
> This patch changes these declarations to follow this pattern instead:
>
> long
> strtol(const char * restrict nptr,
>        const char ** const restrict endptr,
>        int base);
>
> This means that if any modification to these functions accidentally
> introduces either an errant modification to the underlying character
> array, or an accidental assignment to endptr rather than *endptr, the
> compiler should generate an error.  (The two uses of "restrict" in this
> case basically mean strtol() isn't allowed to modify the character array
> by going through *endptr, and endptr isn't allowed to point inside the
> array.)
>
> It also means the typical use case changes to:
>
>   char *s = ...;
>   const char *end;
>   long l;
>
>   l = strtol(s, &end, 10);
>
> Or even:
>
>   const char *p = str;
>   while (p && *p) {
> 	  long l = strtol(p, &p, 10);
> 	  ...
>   }
>
> This fixes 26 places where we discard our attempts at treating the data
> safely by doing:
>
>   const char *p = str;
>   long l;
>
>   l = strtol(p, (char **)&ptr, 10);
>
> It also adds 5 places where we do:
>
>   char *p = str;
>   while (p && *p) {
> 	  long l = strtol(p, (const char ** const)&p, 10);
> 	  ...
> 	  /* more calls that need p not to be pointer-to-const */
>   }
>
> While moderately distasteful, this is a better problem to have.
>
> With one minor exception, I have tested that all of this compiles
> without relevant warnings or errors, and that /much/ of it behaves
> correctly, with gcc 9 using 'gcc -W -Wall -Wextra'.  The one exception
> is the changes in grub-core/osdep/aros/hostdisk.c , which I have no idea
> how to build.
>
> Because the C standard defined type-qualifiers in a way that can be
> confusing, in the past there's been a slow but fairly regular stream of
> churn within our patches, which add and remove the const qualifier in many
> of the users of these functions.  This change should help avoid that in
> the future, and in order to help ensure this, I've added an explanation
> in misc.h so that when someone does get a compiler warning about a type
> error, they have the fix at hand.
>
> The reason we don't have "const" in these calls in the standard is
> purely anachronistic: C78 (de facto) did not have type qualifiers in the
> syntax, and the "const" type qualifier was added for C89 (I think; it
> may have been later).  strtol() appears to date from 4.3BSD in 1986,
> which means it could not be added to those functions in the standard
> without breaking compatibility, which is usually avoided.
>
> The syntax chosen for type qualifiers is what has led to the churn
> regarding usage of const, and is especially confusing on string
> functions due to the lack of a string type.  Quoting from C99, the
> syntax is:
>
>  declarator:
>   pointer[opt] direct-declarator
>  direct-declarator:
>   identifier
>   ( declarator )
>   direct-declarator [ type-qualifier-list[opt] assignment-expression[opt] ]
>   ...
>   direct-declarator [ type-qualifier-list[opt] * ]
>   ...
>  pointer:
>   * type-qualifier-list[opt]
>   * type-qualifier-list[opt] pointer
>  type-qualifier-list:
>   type-qualifier
>   type-qualifier-list type-qualifier
>  ...
>  type-qualifier:
>   const
>   restrict
>   volatile
>
> So the examples go like:
>
> const char foo;			// immutable object
> const char *foo;		// mutable pointer to object
> char * const foo;		// immutable pointer to mutable object
> const char * const foo;		// immutable pointer to immutable object
> const char const * const foo; 	// XXX extra const keyword in the middle
> const char * const * const foo; // immutable pointer to immutable
> 				//   pointer to immutable object
> const char ** const foo;	// immutable pointer to mutable pointer
> 				//   to immutable object
>
> Making const left-associative for * and right-associative for everything
> else may not have been the best choice ever, but here we are, and the
> inevitable result is people using trying to use const (as they should!),
> putting it at the wrong place, fighting with the compiler for a bit, and
> then either removing it or typecasting something in a bad way.  I won't
> go into describing restrict, but its syntax has exactly the same issue
> as with const.
>
> Anyway, the last example above actually represents the *behavior* that's
> required of strtol()-like functions, so that's our choice for the "end"
> pointer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>

I went through all the discussions for earlier version and v2 commit
message. Even though it is not perfect solution I think the benefits
outweigh the losses. So, Reviewed-by: Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com>
If there are no strong technical objections I will push the patch by the
end of this week.

Daniel


      reply	other threads:[~2020-02-24  9:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-02-04 21:02 [PATCH] Make grub_strtoul() "end" pointer have the right const params Peter Jones
2020-02-05  1:04 ` Nicholas Vinson
2020-02-19  0:32   ` Peter Jones
2020-02-19  3:39     ` Nicholas Vinson
2020-02-21 21:35       ` Peter Jones
2020-02-21 21:39         ` [PATCH] Make grub_strtol() "end" pointers have safer const qualifiers. (v2) Peter Jones
2020-02-24  9:42           ` Daniel Kiper [this message]

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=20200224094245.rvqcexhgs5arbj3p@tomti.i.net-space.pl \
    --to=daniel.kiper@oracle.com \
    --cc=grub-devel@gnu.org \
    --cc=pjones@redhat.com \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.