From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
To: "Alex Xu (Hello71)" <alex_y_xu@yahoo.ca>
Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [musl] fix various warnings/theoretical UB
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2023 15:59:57 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230703195957.GZ4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1688401586.hkqjuyrd3s.none@localhost>
On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 01:55:57PM -0400, Alex Xu (Hello71) wrote:
> See attached patches.
> From 978f2cded65ce73450277d3fde48f038b339d5f9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: "Alex Xu (Hello71)" <alex_y_xu@yahoo.ca>
> Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2023 20:28:23 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH 1/4] volatile static -> static volatile
>
> C11 6.11.5p1:
>
> > The placement of a storage-class specifier other than at the
> > beginning of the declaration specifiers in a declaration is an
> > obsolescent feature.
>
> gcc also warns about this.
> ---
> src/time/timer_create.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/time/timer_create.c b/src/time/timer_create.c
> index cd32c945..9216b3ab 100644
> --- a/src/time/timer_create.c
> +++ b/src/time/timer_create.c
> @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ static void *start(void *arg)
>
> int timer_create(clockid_t clk, struct sigevent *restrict evp, timer_t *restrict res)
> {
> - volatile static int init = 0;
> + static volatile int init = 0;
> pthread_t td;
> pthread_attr_t attr;
> int r;
> --
> 2.41.0
No objection to this change. It's contrary to usual style. I would say
let's convert to pthread_once, but this code is slated for removal
anyway once signals are no longer used for SIGEV_THREAD timers.
> From b98f243e7921ddff6978ee9b0ce9f08efaa17951 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: "Alex Xu (Hello71)" <alex_y_xu@yahoo.ca>
> Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2023 20:29:41 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH 2/4] __year_to_secs: fix dangling pointer
>
> C11 6.5.2.5p5:
>
> > If the compound literal occurs outside the body of a function, the
> > object has static storage duration; otherwise, it has automatic
> > storage duration associated with the enclosing block.
>
> gcc also warns about this.
> ---
> src/time/__year_to_secs.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/time/__year_to_secs.c b/src/time/__year_to_secs.c
> index 2824ec6d..d215880a 100644
> --- a/src/time/__year_to_secs.c
> +++ b/src/time/__year_to_secs.c
> @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ long long __year_to_secs(long long year, int *is_leap)
> return 31536000*(y-70) + 86400*leaps;
> }
>
> - int cycles, centuries, leaps, rem;
> + int cycles, centuries, leaps, rem, tmp;
>
> - if (!is_leap) is_leap = &(int){0};
> + if (!is_leap) is_leap = &tmp;
> cycles = (year-100) / 400;
> rem = (year-100) % 400;
> if (rem < 0) {
> --
> 2.41.0
Seems like a bogus warning. The enclosing block is the whole function,
the same as the lifetime of the pointer. This might merit
investigation on whether GCC is doing something wrong though..
> From a30c4ab397af040d10d978d97dd4a6835d4b99a8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: "Alex Xu (Hello71)" <alex_y_xu@yahoo.ca>
> Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2023 20:54:45 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH 3/4] fix mismatched VLA parameter types
>
> gcc warns about this, and it's probably technically UB
> ---
> src/internal/procfdname.c | 2 +-
> src/prng/seed48.c | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/internal/procfdname.c b/src/internal/procfdname.c
> index fd7306ab..bfa3e7e5 100644
> --- a/src/internal/procfdname.c
> +++ b/src/internal/procfdname.c
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> #include "syscall.h"
>
> -void __procfdname(char *buf, unsigned fd)
> +void __procfdname(char buf[static 15+3*sizeof(int)], unsigned fd)
> {
> unsigned i, j;
> for (i=0; (buf[i] = "/proc/self/fd/"[i]); i++);
This was raised/proposed before and is probably an okay change, but
I'd like to understand what the reason "it's probably technically UB"
is.
> diff --git a/src/prng/seed48.c b/src/prng/seed48.c
> index bce7b339..7b789086 100644
> --- a/src/prng/seed48.c
> +++ b/src/prng/seed48.c
> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
> #include <string.h>
> #include "rand48.h"
>
> -unsigned short *seed48(unsigned short *s)
> +unsigned short *seed48(unsigned short s[3])
> {
> static unsigned short p[3];
> memcpy(p, __seed48, sizeof p);
> --
This one is almost surely not UB because there's no static and the 3
is ignored. The question is just whether the static produces a
difference in the declaration type that makes them clash.
Rich
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-03 20:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1688401586.hkqjuyrd3s.none.ref@localhost>
2023-07-03 17:55 ` Alex Xu (Hello71)
2023-07-03 19:59 ` Rich Felker [this message]
2023-07-03 21:23 ` Jens Gustedt
2023-07-03 22:57 ` Rich Felker
2023-07-03 22:30 ` Alex Xu (Hello71)
2023-11-01 23:44 ` [musl] [v2] " Alex Xu (Hello71)
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=20230703195957.GZ4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx \
--to=dalias@libc.org \
--cc=alex_y_xu@yahoo.ca \
--cc=musl@lists.openwall.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.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/musl/
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).