Patchwork Fix undefined behaviour inconsistent for strtok

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Adhemerval Zanella Netto
Date Oct. 25, 2016, 10:58 a.m.
Message ID <1477393113-3845-1-git-send-email-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/16791/
State New
Headers show

Comments

Adhemerval Zanella Netto - Oct. 25, 2016, 10:58 a.m.
Although not stated in any standard how strtok should return if you
pass a null argument if the previous argument is also null, this patch
changes the default implementation to follow this idea.

The original bug report comment #1 states glibc code convention [6]
should not allow it, however for this specific function its contract
does not expect failure even if the returned is ignored (since it
would be a no-op).  Also, patch idea is more focuses on implementation
portability , since it aligns glibc with other implementation that
follows the same idea for strtok:

  - FreeBSD [1], OpenBSD [2], NetBSD [3];
  - uclibc and uclibc-ng [4]
  - musl [5]

I see little value to either assert on null input (as stated in comment
2 from original bug report), change both x86_64 and powerpc64le
implementation to fault on such input, or to keep a different behavior
compared to other libc implementations.

Checked on x86_64, aarch64, and powerpc64le.

	* string/strtok.c (strtok): Return null is previous input is also
	null.
	* string/tst-strtok.c (do_test): Add more strtok coverage.

[1] https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/386ddae58459341ec567604707805814a2128a57/lib/libc/string/strtok.c
[2] http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/lib/libc/string/strtok_r.c?rev=1.10&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&only_with_tag=MAIN
[3] https://github.com/openbsd/src/blob/5271000b44abe23907b73bbb3aa38ddf4a0bce08/lib/libc/string/strtok.c
[4] http://www.uclibc-ng.org/browser/uclibc-ng/libc/string/strtok_r.c
[5] https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/src/string/strtok.c
[6] https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Style_and_Conventions#Invalid_pointers
---
 ChangeLog           |  7 +++++++
 string/strtok.c     |  4 ++--
 string/tst-strtok.c | 23 ++++++++++++-----------
 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
Andreas Schwab - Oct. 25, 2016, 11:31 a.m.
On Okt 25 2016, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:

> 	* string/strtok.c (strtok): Return null is previous input is also

s/is/if/

> diff --git a/string/strtok.c b/string/strtok.c
> index 7a4574d..5c4b309 100644
> --- a/string/strtok.c
> +++ b/string/strtok.c
> @@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ STRTOK (char *s, const char *delim)
>  {
>    char *token;
>  
> -  if (s == NULL)
> -    s = olds;
> +  if ((s == NULL) && ((s = olds) == NULL))

Please avoid assignment in an expression.  And the parens are redundant.

Andreas.
Adhemerval Zanella Netto - Oct. 25, 2016, 12:33 p.m.
On 25/10/2016 09:31, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Okt 25 2016, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
>> 	* string/strtok.c (strtok): Return null is previous input is also
> 
> s/is/if/
> 
>> diff --git a/string/strtok.c b/string/strtok.c
>> index 7a4574d..5c4b309 100644
>> --- a/string/strtok.c
>> +++ b/string/strtok.c
>> @@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ STRTOK (char *s, const char *delim)
>>  {
>>    char *token;
>>  
>> -  if (s == NULL)
>> -    s = olds;
>> +  if ((s == NULL) && ((s = olds) == NULL))
> 
> Please avoid assignment in an expression.  And the parens are redundant.
> 
> Andreas.
> 

Right, with these fixes would it be acceptable?
Andreas Schwab - Oct. 25, 2016, 12:57 p.m.
On Okt 25 2016, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:

> On 25/10/2016 09:31, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> On Okt 25 2016, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> 	* string/strtok.c (strtok): Return null is previous input is also
>> 
>> s/is/if/
>> 
>>> diff --git a/string/strtok.c b/string/strtok.c
>>> index 7a4574d..5c4b309 100644
>>> --- a/string/strtok.c
>>> +++ b/string/strtok.c
>>> @@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ STRTOK (char *s, const char *delim)
>>>  {
>>>    char *token;
>>>  
>>> -  if (s == NULL)
>>> -    s = olds;
>>> +  if ((s == NULL) && ((s = olds) == NULL))
>> 
>> Please avoid assignment in an expression.  And the parens are redundant.
>> 
>> Andreas.
>> 
>
> Right, with these fixes would it be acceptable?

I don't see much point in supporting invalid use of strtok.

Andreas.
Adhemerval Zanella Netto - Oct. 25, 2016, 1:13 p.m.
On 25/10/2016 10:57, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Okt 25 2016, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 25/10/2016 09:31, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> On Okt 25 2016, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 	* string/strtok.c (strtok): Return null is previous input is also
>>>
>>> s/is/if/
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/string/strtok.c b/string/strtok.c
>>>> index 7a4574d..5c4b309 100644
>>>> --- a/string/strtok.c
>>>> +++ b/string/strtok.c
>>>> @@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ STRTOK (char *s, const char *delim)
>>>>  {
>>>>    char *token;
>>>>  
>>>> -  if (s == NULL)
>>>> -    s = olds;
>>>> +  if ((s == NULL) && ((s = olds) == NULL))
>>>
>>> Please avoid assignment in an expression.  And the parens are redundant.
>>>
>>> Andreas.
>>>
>>
>> Right, with these fixes would it be acceptable?
> 
> I don't see much point in supporting invalid use of strtok.
> 
> Andreas.
> 

My point is just to add portability and align with other current
implementations.
Andreas Schwab - Oct. 25, 2016, 1:19 p.m.
On Okt 25 2016, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:

> On 25/10/2016 10:57, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> On Okt 25 2016, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 25/10/2016 09:31, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>>> On Okt 25 2016, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 	* string/strtok.c (strtok): Return null is previous input is also
>>>>
>>>> s/is/if/
>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/string/strtok.c b/string/strtok.c
>>>>> index 7a4574d..5c4b309 100644
>>>>> --- a/string/strtok.c
>>>>> +++ b/string/strtok.c
>>>>> @@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ STRTOK (char *s, const char *delim)
>>>>>  {
>>>>>    char *token;
>>>>>  
>>>>> -  if (s == NULL)
>>>>> -    s = olds;
>>>>> +  if ((s == NULL) && ((s = olds) == NULL))
>>>>
>>>> Please avoid assignment in an expression.  And the parens are redundant.
>>>>
>>>> Andreas.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, with these fixes would it be acceptable?
>> 
>> I don't see much point in supporting invalid use of strtok.
>> 
>> Andreas.
>> 
>
> My point is just to add portability and align with other current
> implementations. 

Has it ever be a problem in the past?

Andreas.
Adhemerval Zanella Netto - Oct. 25, 2016, 1:22 p.m.
On 25/10/2016 11:19, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Okt 25 2016, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 25/10/2016 10:57, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> On Okt 25 2016, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25/10/2016 09:31, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>>>> On Okt 25 2016, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 	* string/strtok.c (strtok): Return null is previous input is also
>>>>>
>>>>> s/is/if/
>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/string/strtok.c b/string/strtok.c
>>>>>> index 7a4574d..5c4b309 100644
>>>>>> --- a/string/strtok.c
>>>>>> +++ b/string/strtok.c
>>>>>> @@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ STRTOK (char *s, const char *delim)
>>>>>>  {
>>>>>>    char *token;
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> -  if (s == NULL)
>>>>>> -    s = olds;
>>>>>> +  if ((s == NULL) && ((s = olds) == NULL))
>>>>>
>>>>> Please avoid assignment in an expression.  And the parens are redundant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Andreas.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, with these fixes would it be acceptable?
>>>
>>> I don't see much point in supporting invalid use of strtok.
>>>
>>> Andreas.
>>>
>>
>> My point is just to add portability and align with other current
>> implementations. 
> 
> Has it ever be a problem in the past?
> 
> Andreas.
> 

None I am aware of, but regardless it is a effort to close down old
glibc bugs and keep the backlog under control.
Florian Weimer - Oct. 25, 2016, 1:32 p.m.
On 10/25/2016 12:58 PM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> The original bug report comment #1

I don't see a reference to that bug anywhere, so it's not clear (to me 
at least) what the report was about.  (But I can guess …)

Florian
Andreas Schwab - Oct. 25, 2016, 1:45 p.m.
On Okt 25 2016, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:

> None I am aware of, but regardless it is a effort to close down old
> glibc bugs and keep the backlog under control.

Which bug?

Andreas.
Adhemerval Zanella Netto - Oct. 25, 2016, 1:49 p.m.
On 25/10/2016 11:45, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Okt 25 2016, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
>> None I am aware of, but regardless it is a effort to close down old
>> glibc bugs and keep the backlog under control.
> 
> Which bug?
> 
> Andreas.
> 

Oops, my bad. BZ#16640.
Joseph Myers - Oct. 25, 2016, 1:51 p.m.
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:

> None I am aware of, but regardless it is a effort to close down old
> glibc bugs and keep the backlog under control.

Well, if a bug report is invalid then closing it as INVALID is 
appropriate.  Or if there is an idea in the bug report that might or might 
not be a good idea but isn't appropriate for Bugzilla, closing as INVALID 
and putting a note on 
<https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Development_Todo/Master> of the idea to 
consider (with a link to the previous discussion in the bug) is 
appropriate.
Adhemerval Zanella Netto - Oct. 25, 2016, 2:08 p.m.
On 25/10/2016 11:51, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> 
>> None I am aware of, but regardless it is a effort to close down old
>> glibc bugs and keep the backlog under control.
> 
> Well, if a bug report is invalid then closing it as INVALID is 
> appropriate.  Or if there is an idea in the bug report that might or might 
> not be a good idea but isn't appropriate for Bugzilla, closing as INVALID 
> and putting a note on 
> <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Development_Todo/Master> of the idea to 
> consider (with a link to the previous discussion in the bug) is 
> appropriate.
> 

Right, but the bug report is about the inconsistent behaviour about
for x86_64 (and powerpc as well) and default one.  Bug report comments
from Carlos pointed that it should be fixed in x86_64/powerpc
implementation, while I argued that it would better to follow
what other libc are aiming for since this specific case that does
trigger any particular issue. That's why I think it is not invalid.

If the consensus is indeed to fix the x86_64/powerpc I will work
towards, although I still prefer aim for portability.

Patch

diff --git a/string/strtok.c b/string/strtok.c
index 7a4574d..5c4b309 100644
--- a/string/strtok.c
+++ b/string/strtok.c
@@ -40,8 +40,8 @@  STRTOK (char *s, const char *delim)
 {
   char *token;
 
-  if (s == NULL)
-    s = olds;
+  if ((s == NULL) && ((s = olds) == NULL))
+    return NULL;
 
   /* Scan leading delimiters.  */
   s += strspn (s, delim);
diff --git a/string/tst-strtok.c b/string/tst-strtok.c
index 6fbef9f..d9180a4 100644
--- a/string/tst-strtok.c
+++ b/string/tst-strtok.c
@@ -2,25 +2,26 @@ 
 #include <stdio.h>
 #include <string.h>
 
+static int do_test (void);
+
+#define TEST_FUNCTION do_test ()
+#include "../test-skeleton.c"
+
 static int
 do_test (void)
 {
   char buf[1] = { 0 };
   int result = 0;
 
+  if (strtok (NULL, " ") != NULL)
+    FAIL_RET ("first strtok call did not return NULL");
+  if (strtok (NULL, " ") != NULL)
+    FAIL_RET ("second strtok call did not return NULL");
+
   if (strtok (buf, " ") != NULL)
-    {
-      puts ("first strtok call did not return NULL");
-      result = 1;
-    }
+    FAIL_RET ("third strtok call did not return NULL");
   else if (strtok (NULL, " ") != NULL)
-    {
-      puts ("second strtok call did not return NULL");
-      result = 1;
-    }
+    FAIL_RET ("forth strtok call did not return NULL");
 
   return result;
 }
-
-#define TEST_FUNCTION do_test ()
-#include "../test-skeleton.c"