From: "Laszlo Ersek" <lersek@redhat.com>
To: devel@edk2.groups.io, zhichao.gao@intel.com
Cc: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>,
Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>,
Marvin Hauser <mhaeuser@outlook.de>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 0/3] MdePkg/BaseLib: Base64Decode: Make it follow its specification
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 13:11:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e25c56ef-b838-b5c6-b0ac-2fa430a9f5b3@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c495bd0b-ea4d-7206-8a4f-a7149760d19a@redhat.com>
On 07/01/19 13:02, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 06/28/19 05:57, Gao, Zhichao wrote:
> (2a) SourceLength has nothing to do with Destination. The comment should
> be updated -- making sure that (Source + SourceLength) do not overflow
> MAX_ADDRESS is worthwhile, but the comment is misleading.
Let me re-state that.
Usually, when you expect the caller to provide an array of bytes,
identified by base address and size, the burden to provide an *actual
array* is on the caller. If the caller does not conform to the function
specification, the behavior is undefined, and it's on the caller.
Therefore, checking MAX_ADDRESS overflows is *generally* dubious, in my
opinion, because a valid array can never overflow MAX_ADDRESS.
If we want to be paranoid about this, I guess we can keep implement
MAX_ADDRESS checks, but then we should both document and implement them
correctly.
Second, it is usually good to specify whether overlap between input and
output is permitted. If we want to be paranoid, we can check that
explicitly again. I don't necessarily suggest that we implement an
overlap check, but we should likely specify in the leading comment that
overlap is not permitted. (This is similar to the "restrict" keyword
from C99.)
Thanks
Laszlo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-01 11:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-28 3:57 [PATCH 0/3] MdePkg/BaseLib: Base64Decode: Make it follow its specification Gao, Zhichao
2019-06-28 3:57 ` [PATCH 1/3] MdePkg/BaseLib: Adjust the coding style in Base64Decode Gao, Zhichao
2019-06-28 14:26 ` [edk2-devel] " Laszlo Ersek
2019-07-01 9:24 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-07-01 9:55 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-06-28 3:57 ` [PATCH 2/3] MdePkg/BaseLib: Base64Decode: Make DestinationSize complied to spec Gao, Zhichao
2019-07-01 11:03 ` [edk2-devel] " Laszlo Ersek
2019-06-28 3:57 ` [PATCH 3/3] MdePkg/BaseLib: Base64Decode: Add decription for RETURN_SUCCESS Gao, Zhichao
2019-07-01 9:54 ` [edk2-devel] " Laszlo Ersek
2019-06-28 14:28 ` [edk2-devel] [PATCH 0/3] MdePkg/BaseLib: Base64Decode: Make it follow its specification Laszlo Ersek
2019-07-01 11:02 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-07-01 11:11 ` Laszlo Ersek [this message]
2019-07-01 18:01 ` Laszlo Ersek
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-list 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=e25c56ef-b838-b5c6-b0ac-2fa430a9f5b3@redhat.com \
--to=devel@edk2.groups.io \
/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.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox