[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200530175907.GP23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 18:59:07 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Daniel Rosenberg <drosen@...gle.com>,
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: avoid utf8_strncasecmp() with unstable name
On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 10:35:47AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 10:18:14AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:02:16PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > + if (len <= DNAME_INLINE_LEN - 1) {
> > > + unsigned int i;
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
> > > + strbuf[i] = READ_ONCE(str[i]);
> > > + strbuf[len] = 0;
> >
> > This READ_ONCE is going to force the compiler to use byte accesses.
> > What's wrong with using a plain memcpy()?
> >
>
> It's undefined behavior when the source can be concurrently modified.
>
> Compilers can assume that it's not, and remove the memcpy() (instead just using
> the source data directly) if they can prove that the destination array is never
> modified again before it goes out of scope.
>
> Do you have any suggestions that don't involve undefined behavior?
Even memcpy(strbuf, (volatile void *)str, len)? It's been a while since I've
looked at these parts of C99...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists