From: "Laszlo Ersek" <lersek@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>,
devel@edk2.groups.io, Mike Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
Cc: "Gao, Liming" <liming.gao@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 04/10] MdePkg/PiFirmwareFile: fix undefined behavior in FFS_FILE_SIZE
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:45:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <fdfb259c-9293-2bcd-300b-92b5741ba8c0@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6FA88780-622D-4788-BDF8-6C807D85D9D1@apple.com>
On 04/17/19 20:31, Andrew Fish wrote:
> I was actually writing a mail to some people that sit on the C/C++
> standards committee that are UB experts to get some clarification when
> you sent this mail. [...]
>
> I'm basically asking if this code pedantic conforms to C99 and C11:
>
> EFI_COMMON_SECTION_HEADER gSec = { { 0x01, 0x02, 0x3 }, 0x10 };
>
> return *(UINT32 *)gSec.Size & 0x00ffffff;
I'm really interested as to how they will respond!
(Because I think (see up-thread) that the code doesn't conform.)
> I ran the clang static analyzer and runtime ubsan on the above code
> and it did not complain (I force strict aliasing via
> -fstrict-aliasing, and I'm using the Sys V ABI since this is just the
> command line compiler on my Mac).
Yesterday I tried something similar with both gcc and clang (not recent
versions of them, unfortunately), and they were all too happy with the
code as well, when I thought they should have flagged it.
The options I used were:
-fsyntax-only -Wall -Wextra -std=c99 -pedantic \
-fstrict-aliasing -Wstrict-aliasing
Beyond that, I checked the documentation of "-fstrict-aliasing" in the
gcc manual at
<https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-8.3.0/gcc/Optimize-Options.html>. It
provides several examples; one of them is:
> Similarly, access by taking the address, casting the resulting pointer
> and dereferencing the result has undefined behavior, even if the cast
> uses a union type, e.g.:
>
> union a_union {
> int i;
> double d;
> };
>
> int f() {
> double d = 3.0;
> return ((union a_union *) &d)->i;
> }
I think the access in this example is well defined (I seem able to
deduce it using the effective type rules), and so I consider this a bug
in the gcc docs. I reached out to someone in the toolchain team at Red
Hat to confirm or disprove.
Thanks
Laszlo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-18 8:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-12 23:31 [PATCH 00/10] patches for some warnings raised by "RH covscan" Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-12 23:31 ` [PATCH 01/10] MdePkg/PiFirmwareFile: express IS_SECTION2 in terms of SECTION_SIZE Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-15 17:01 ` [edk2-devel] " Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2019-04-12 23:31 ` [PATCH 02/10] MdePkg/PiFirmwareFile: fix undefined behavior in SECTION_SIZE Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-14 7:19 ` [edk2-devel] " Jordan Justen
2019-04-15 16:15 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-16 8:28 ` Liming Gao
2019-04-16 9:04 ` Jordan Justen
2019-04-16 10:59 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-16 16:50 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2019-04-17 10:08 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-16 18:48 ` Jordan Justen
2019-04-16 23:25 ` Andrew Fish
2019-04-17 10:29 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-17 11:44 ` Andrew Fish
2019-04-17 14:59 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-17 19:35 ` Jordan Justen
2019-04-18 9:38 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-18 15:18 ` Liming Gao
2019-04-17 10:01 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-12 23:31 ` [PATCH 03/10] BaseTools/PiFirmwareFile: " Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-12 23:31 ` [PATCH 04/10] MdePkg/PiFirmwareFile: fix undefined behavior in FFS_FILE_SIZE Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-15 17:23 ` [edk2-devel] " Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2019-04-17 17:52 ` Michael D Kinney
2019-04-17 18:31 ` Michael D Kinney
2019-04-18 9:06 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-17 18:31 ` Andrew Fish
2019-04-17 18:36 ` Michael D Kinney
2019-04-18 8:48 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-18 8:45 ` Laszlo Ersek [this message]
2019-04-18 23:12 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-18 17:20 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2019-04-18 17:59 ` Michael D Kinney
2019-04-18 18:12 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2019-04-12 23:31 ` [PATCH 05/10] OvmfPkg/Sec: fix out-of-bounds reads Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-15 17:24 ` [edk2-devel] " Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2019-04-12 23:31 ` [PATCH 06/10] OvmfPkg/QemuVideoDxe: avoid arithmetic on null pointer Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-12 23:31 ` [PATCH 07/10] OvmfPkg/AcpiPlatformDxe: suppress invalid "deref of undef pointer" warning Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-15 17:26 ` [edk2-devel] " Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2019-04-12 23:31 ` [PATCH 08/10] OvmfPkg: suppress "Value stored to ... is never read" analyzer warnings Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-14 8:03 ` [edk2-devel] " Jordan Justen
2019-04-15 16:25 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-16 9:26 ` Jordan Justen
2019-04-16 11:44 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-12 23:31 ` [PATCH 09/10] OvmfPkg/AcpiPlatformDxe: catch theoretical nullptr deref in Xen code Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-15 17:28 ` [edk2-devel] " Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2019-04-12 23:31 ` [PATCH 10/10] OvmfPkg/BasePciCapLib: suppress invalid "nullptr deref" warning Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-15 17:31 ` [edk2-devel] " Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2019-04-16 11:01 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-12 23:36 ` [PATCH 00/10] patches for some warnings raised by "RH covscan" Ard Biesheuvel
2019-04-15 16:16 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-18 14:20 ` [edk2-devel] " 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=fdfb259c-9293-2bcd-300b-92b5741ba8c0@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