[RFC] Avoid indexing std::vector past the end
Commit Message
Hello all,
On my system I have added some asserts into GCC's stl_vector.h, which check for
various mistakes like out of bounds access, call to std::vector::front on empty
vector etc. to debug my own projects. After I built GDB with such
modifications, I've noticed that in some cases it accesses some vectors out of
bound, namely element one past the end. Effectively the code is something like
`auto*p=&someVector[someVector.size()];`, which, although may seem legitimate
on the first glance since it simply takes address, is still Undefined Behavior
according to the C++ Standard (see e.g. [1] and links in that page).
So I wonder whether GDB deliberately exploits undefined behavior here knowing
that GCC might give(?) some guarantee that this will always work as intended,
or it's simply a mistake, and my patch would be OK.
[1]: https://stackoverflow.com/a/27069592/673852
Regards,
Ruslan
---
gdb/psymtab.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Comments
On 2017-12-28 11:01, Ruslan Kabatsayev wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> On my system I have added some asserts into GCC's stl_vector.h, which
> check for
> various mistakes like out of bounds access, call to std::vector::front
> on empty
> vector etc. to debug my own projects. After I built GDB with such
> modifications, I've noticed that in some cases it accesses some vectors
> out of
> bound, namely element one past the end. Effectively the code is
> something like
> `auto*p=&someVector[someVector.size()];`, which, although may seem
> legitimate
> on the first glance since it simply takes address, is still Undefined
> Behavior
> according to the C++ Standard (see e.g. [1] and links in that page).
>
> So I wonder whether GDB deliberately exploits undefined behavior here
> knowing
> that GCC might give(?) some guarantee that this will always work as
> intended,
> or it's simply a mistake, and my patch would be OK.
>
> [1]: https://stackoverflow.com/a/27069592/673852
>
> Regards,
> Ruslan
Hi Ruslan,
Thanks for finding and reporting this. We certainly don't want to rely
on any compiler-specific undefined behavior, this is a mistake.
The patch looks good to me, it's just missing a ChangeLog entry.
Simon
@@ -1337,21 +1337,21 @@ recursively_search_psymtabs
}
partial_symbol **gbound
- = &objfile->global_psymbols[ps->globals_offset + ps->n_global_syms];
+ = objfile->global_psymbols.data() + ps->globals_offset + ps->n_global_syms;
partial_symbol **sbound
- = &objfile->static_psymbols[ps->statics_offset + ps->n_static_syms];
+ = objfile->static_psymbols.data() + ps->statics_offset + ps->n_static_syms;
partial_symbol **bound = gbound;
/* Go through all of the symbols stored in a partial
symtab in one loop. */
- partial_symbol **psym = &objfile->global_psymbols[ps->globals_offset];
+ partial_symbol **psym = objfile->global_psymbols.data() + ps->globals_offset;
while (keep_going)
{
if (psym >= bound)
{
if (bound == gbound && ps->n_static_syms != 0)
{
- psym = &objfile->static_psymbols[ps->statics_offset];
+ psym = objfile->static_psymbols.data() + ps->statics_offset;
bound = sbound;
}
else