Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2022 10:31:02 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: puwenxu <puwenxu1@...wei.com> Cc: "musl@...ts.openwall.com" <musl@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: Re: Question on 2b2c8aafce9d80f9d58652643538f4d58e82b856 On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 06:29:54AM +0000, puwenxu wrote: > Dear maintainer, > I'm using musl 18.104.22.168 now. When I was running some test case > codes for musl, I found there may be a problem on modification of > 2b2c8aafce9d80f9d58652643538f4d58e82b856. > As you can see in the picture, this modification assign buf > to orig. Then, the orig will be assigned to buf again. If the > original value of buf is NULL, the latter value of the buf will be > NULL. However, assign out to buf will fail if buf is NULL. Rather than pointing at what you think is wrong in the source change, can you demonstrate a minimal example of calling code that was correct and worked before the change, but fails after the change? As best I can tell, your concern is about the case where you pass a null pointer as buf when using one of the msgctl commands that requires a pointer to a buffer. This is undefined. > I have written a simple file to verification my opinion. The > test code and output is shown in the following picture. I think it > may be better to add a check for buf in this situation. This isn't an example. An example would be a minimal program that calls msgctl in a valid (i.e. no undefined behavior) way and malfunctions as a result of the change. Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.