This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH][BZ #13724] Do not segfault in pthread_setname_np (x, NULL)

On Tue, 2013-10-08 at 13:04 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/08/13 12:48, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > On 10/08/2013 12:27 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 12:01:39PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> >>> On 10/07/2013 10:19 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> >>>>      If you're going to check for NULL pointer arguments where you have
> >>>>      not entered into a contract to accept and interpret them, do it
> >>>>      with an assert, not a conditional error return. This way the bugs
> >>>>      in the caller will be immediately detected and can be fixed, and
> >>>>      it makes it easy to disable the overhead in production builds. I
> >>>>      question the value of the assert except as documentation however;
> >>>>      a segfault from dereferencing the NULL pointer is just as
> >>>>      effective for debugging.
> >>>
> >>> Should we have an assert there then to document the contract and provide
> >>> a more meaningful error message like a backtrace?
> >>
> >> There are probably hundreds of places all over glibc where this same
> >> issue applies. I don't think documenting them all at the source level
> >> via assertions is a productive use of developer time, source code
> >> size, binary size, or changelog and git log clutter. C programmers
> >> should not be treating the passing of NULL where a string is expected
> >> as a diagnosable error but as what it is: undefined behavior. Usually,
> >> a crash will naturally result and be easy enough to debug.
> >
> > Doesn't this violate the previous reason for wanting to avoid the NULL
> > check?
> >
> > If we don't assert the NULL may get stored in a structure or array and
> > eventually find it's way to code that dereferences it much much later
> > and cause a crash that is not near the place at which the application
> > entered into undefined behaviour.
> >
> > It seems incredibly useful to enable the asserts and trigger these
> > violations as early as possible. If you don't care you can disable
> > the asserts?
> Another approach would be similar to what we're doing with memstomp. 
> ie, build a set of wrappers which check for these argument goofs and 
> allow users to dl-preload DSOs with the wrappers.
> When I first proposed the idea for these sanity checking dl-preload 
> libraries for Fedora I envisioned that we could go beyond just checking 
> for overlapping memory areas in the mem* and str* functions.  There 
> could be a set of pthread wrapper functions that check for whatever 
> invariants we can in the pthread* functions without a huge performance hit.

This sounds like it could be a very useful debugging tool.  If we had
something like this, it could perhaps also be required to use this
before posting a bug report?

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]