From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
	DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,WEIRD_QUOTING
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 19844 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2023 15:13:44 -0000
Received: from second.openwall.net (193.110.157.125)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 24 Feb 2023 15:13:44 -0000
Received: (qmail 5295 invoked by uid 550); 24 Feb 2023 15:13:41 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-ID: <musl.lists.openwall.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Received: (qmail 5256 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2023 15:13:40 -0000
X-Virus-Scanned: SPAM Filter at disroot.org
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 21:13:34 +0600
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=disroot.org; s=mail;
	t=1677251608; bh=nkbbrCzYoMmBa1SU+QHbrAQyWOnOSbnbYXRryTUOMp4=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To;
	b=Lqqz0QvKEDJFsGEr8aiLLcreStH0W4WbojGBXct+lfn3UCP7RtfTACx6tGCmrzNsu
	 wIVoN1Y7iQlC1eOwSk6FpO5mESMyTaLlDTTIiK9Et/zsnnotgEfGr+qj0YhZbDQFah
	 UMvGLnPQ8r2c/GlXFQsUTGAn7m/b9tnmRxXoE31C1y37LKt0oiruDsc53pjpr6W1VX
	 AUTqg3kR28wwu6FyxgcPduQQ0EKBrK79UBGlK1AeeN6J642ba2ARFyypVBUXZDJHIF
	 /IQWsnkmkFSIJ5Ze1mPlnd35MVJipGMyDPBAOiOtpeiYZowSTuaexMCrAq5GL5GUFk
	 yLVFD3+fo6Bdg==
From: NRK <nrk@disroot.org>
To: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@google.com>
Cc: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>, musl@lists.openwall.com
Message-ID: <20230224151334.ycgddzdc4o5a4m5q@gen2.localdomain>
References: <CAK-_uh7=5Ea3pESgEiDjWHifpe+x3w3-ccpDupz6d9ksyGqXLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230224133413.GE4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <20230224135511.iunglqtcvpjeqgtv@gen2.localdomain>
 <20230224140739.GF4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <20230224141731.dm4w7fbfkczbx42e@gen2.localdomain>
 <CAK-_uh655WeD52j426MnxGG1F6N-MW3OtkHMsSzEnhf5suxSsw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAK-_uh655WeD52j426MnxGG1F6N-MW3OtkHMsSzEnhf5suxSsw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [musl] undefined behavior in fread.c

On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 09:42:00AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> We could take the lock and still avoid UB with an early return.

As Jens has pointed out, the UB in this case is the caller calling fread
with NULL - not in musl.

And on a sidenote, I've always found - especially for the various mem*
functions - accepting 0 size but not accepting NULL arg (when n is 0) to
be a poor choice. A lot of the value that accepting 0 size provides is
diminished by not accepting NULL.

And this affects more than just libc, too. Compilers like gcc/clang will
see a call like `memcmp(p, q, 0)` and will ""determine"" `p` and `q` are
non-null (which can lead to deleting any subsequent null-checks on those
pointers).

But anyways, that was just a small rant.

As things currently are, *even if* musl deal with the NULL pointer - any
caller calling fread with NULL is still in danger from compilers and
needs to fix it on their side.

- NRK