lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5db920e0-51e8-48d9-b0ae-95479e875fad@t-8ch.de>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 17:48:13 +0200
From: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
To: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tools/nolibc: add support for [v]sscanf()

On 2024-07-31 17:01:09+0000, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 7/31/24 12:32, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > The implementation is limited and only supports numeric arguments.
> 
> I would like to see more information in here. Why is this needed
> etc. etc.

Ack.

> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
> > ---
> >   tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h                 | 93 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++
> >   2 files changed, 152 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h b/tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h
> > index c968dbbc4ef8..d63c45c06d8e 100644
> > --- a/tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h
> > +++ b/tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h
> > @@ -348,6 +348,99 @@ int printf(const char *fmt, ...)
> >   	return ret;
> >   }
> > +static __attribute__((unused))
> > +int vsscanf(const char *str, const char *format, va_list args)
> 
> Is there a reason why you didn't use the same code in lib/vsprintf.c?
> You could simply duplicate the code here?

lib/vsprintf.c is GPL-2.0-only while nolibc is LGPL-2.1 OR MIT,
so code reuse isn't really possible.
Furthermore I think the vsprintf.c implements the custom kernel formats,
while nolibc should use posix ones.

> With all these libc functionality added, it isn't nolibc looks like :)

Well :-)

The main motivation is to provide kselftests compatibility.
Maybe Willy disagrees.

> > +{
> > +	uintmax_t uval;
> > +	intmax_t ival;
> > +	int base;
> > +	char *endptr;
> > +	int matches;
> > +	int lpref;
> > +
> > +	matches = 0;
> > +
> > +	while (1) {
> > +		if (*format == '%') {
> > +			lpref = 0;
> > +			format++;
> > +
> > +			if (*format == 'l') {
> > +				lpref = 1;
> > +				format++;
> > +				if (*format == 'l') {
> > +					lpref = 2;
> > +					format++;
> > +				}
> > +			}
> > +
> > +			if (*format == '%') {
> > +				if ('%' != *str)
> > +					goto done;
> > +				str++;
> > +				format++;
> > +				continue;
> > +			} else if (*format == 'd') {
> > +				ival = strtoll(str, &endptr, 10);
> > +				if (lpref == 0)
> > +					*va_arg(args, int *) = ival;
> > +				else if (lpref == 1)
> > +					*va_arg(args, long *) = ival;
> > +				else if (lpref == 2)
> > +					*va_arg(args, long long *) = ival;
> > +			} else if (*format == 'u' || *format == 'x' || *format == 'X') {
> > +				base = *format == 'u' ? 10 : 16;
> > +				uval = strtoull(str, &endptr, base);
> > +				if (lpref == 0)
> > +					*va_arg(args, unsigned int *) = uval;
> > +				else if (lpref == 1)
> > +					*va_arg(args, unsigned long *) = uval;
> > +				else if (lpref == 2)
> > +					*va_arg(args, unsigned long long *) = uval;
> > +			} else if (*format == 'p') {
> > +				*va_arg(args, void **) = (void *)strtoul(str, &endptr, 16);
> > +			} else {
> > +				SET_ERRNO(EILSEQ);
> > +				goto done;
> > +			}
> > +
> > +			format++;
> > +			str = endptr;
> > +			matches++;
> > +
> > +		} else if (*format == '\0') {
> > +			goto done;
> > +		} else if (isspace(*format)) {
> > +			while (isspace(*format))
> > +				format++;
> > +			while (isspace(*str))
> > +				str++;
> > +		} else if (*format == *str) {
> > +			format++;
> > +			str++;
> > +		} else {
> > +			if (!matches)
> > +				matches = EOF;
> > +			goto done;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +done:
> > +	return matches;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static __attribute__((unused, format(scanf, 2, 3)))
> > +int sscanf(const char *str, const char *format, ...)
> > +{
> > +	va_list args;
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	va_start(args, format);
> > +	ret = vsscanf(str, format, args);
> > +	va_end(args);
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> >   static __attribute__((unused))
> >   void perror(const char *msg)
> >   {
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> > index 093d0512f4c5..addbceb0b276 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> > @@ -1277,6 +1277,64 @@ static int expect_vfprintf(int llen, int c, const char *expected, const char *fm
> >   	return ret;
> >   }
> > +static int test_scanf(void)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long long ull;
> > +	unsigned long ul;
> > +	unsigned int u;
> > +	long long ll;
> > +	long l;
> > +	void *p;
> > +	int i;
> > +
> > +	if (sscanf("", "foo") != EOF)
> > +		return 1;
> > +
> > +	if (sscanf("foo", "foo") != 0)
> > +		return 2;
> > +
> > +	if (sscanf("123", "%d", &i) != 1)
> > +		return 3;
> > +
> > +	if (i != 123)
> > +		return 4;
> > +
> > +	if (sscanf("a123b456c0x90", "a%db%uc%p", &i, &u, &p) != 3)
> > +		return 5;
> > +
> > +	if (i != 123)
> > +		return 6;
> > +
> > +	if (u != 456)
> > +		return 7;
> > +
> > +	if (p != (void *)0x90)
> > +		return 8;
> > +
> > +	if (sscanf("a    b1", "a b%d", &i) != 1)
> > +		return 9;
> > +
> > +	if (i != 1)
> > +		return 10;
> > +
> > +	if (sscanf("a%1", "a%%%d", &i) != 1)
> > +		return 11;
> > +
> > +	if (i != 1)
> > +		return 12;
> > +
> > +	if (sscanf("1|2|3|4|5|6",
> > +		   "%d|%ld|%lld|%u|%lu|%llu",
> > +		   &i, &l, &ll, &u, &ul, &ull) != 6)
> > +		return 13;
> > +
> > +	if (i != 1 || l != 2 || ll != 3 ||
> > +	    u != 4 || ul != 5 || ull != 6)
> > +		return 14;
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> 
> Can we simplify this code? It is hard to read code with too
> many conditions. Maybe defining an array test conditions
> instead of a series ifs.

I tried that and didn't find a way.
Any pointers are welcome.

> > +
> > +
> >   static int run_vfprintf(int min, int max)
> >   {
> >   	int test;
> > @@ -1298,6 +1356,7 @@ static int run_vfprintf(int min, int max)
> >   		CASE_TEST(char);         EXPECT_VFPRINTF(1, "c", "%c", 'c'); break;
> >   		CASE_TEST(hex);          EXPECT_VFPRINTF(1, "f", "%x", 0xf); break;
> >   		CASE_TEST(pointer);      EXPECT_VFPRINTF(3, "0x1", "%p", (void *) 0x1); break;
> > +		CASE_TEST(scanf);        EXPECT_ZR(1, test_scanf()); break;
> >   		case __LINE__:
> >   			return ret; /* must be last */
> >   		/* note: do not set any defaults so as to permit holes above */
> > 
> 
> thanks,
> -- Shuah

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ