mailing list of musl libc
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Rich Felker <>
To: Markus Wichmann <>
Cc:, Sascha Brawer <>
Subject: Re: [musl] Should fdopen() check the passed file descriptor?
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2022 12:09:43 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220804142322.GC3042@voyager>

On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 04:23:22PM +0200, Markus Wichmann wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 02:42:49PM +0200, Sascha Brawer wrote:
> > Dear list
> >
> > Should musl’s fdopen() verify whether the passed file descriptor refers to
> > an open file?
> >
> It should not. Normal musl policy for "may fail" is to just not check
> that. musl only implements "shall fail".
> In this case, using numbers that are not FDs as such is really really
> bad. It means the control flow is utterly br0ken. How did the program
> even get into a state in which a variable is supposed to be holding an
> FD but doesn't?
> It betrays a really big problem with the program if this can happen. If
> the program is multi-threaded (or opens files from a signal handler,
> which can happen since open(2) is async-signal-safe), the program might
> suddenly start using a file descriptor wrong. That would be an
> interesting problem to debug.
> In short, any program calling fdopen() with a number that is not
> guaranteed to be an open file has a logic error that needs to be fixed
> post-haste. Returning EBADF is really only plastering over the problem.
> It would be like dereferencing a pointer fresh out of malloc() and
> catching the SIGSEGV instead of just testing whether the pointer is 0.

Yes, this is a really good explanation of the reasoning here.

Moreover, in this case checking it would incur high extra cost for
correct programs for the sake of producing a useless (because "may
fail") error that incorrect programs can't even rely on getting. The
high cost is because we'd have to do an extra probing syscall *before*
doing anything with side effects. We can't even move the existing
syscalls that would probe (only present in some code paths) before the
malloc, because then they would have their side effects even if the
malloc failed, and if we moved them afterwards, we'd have to have a
failure exit path after malloc already succeeded, thus forcing free to
be linked in a program that otherwise might not want it.


      reply	other threads:[~2022-08-04 16:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-08-04 12:42 Sascha Brawer
2022-08-04 14:23 ` Markus Wichmann
2022-08-04 16:09   ` Rich Felker [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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \

* 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.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

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 NNTP newsgroup(s).