[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 21:13:34 +0600
From: NRK <nrk@...root.org>
To: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...gle.com>
Cc: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: 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
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.
