Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

libc: strlcpy/strlcat shouldn't bzero the rest of buf #114259

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

gburgessiv
Copy link
Member

When running Bionic's testsuite over llvm-libc, tests broke because e.g.,

const char *str = "abc";
char buf[7]{"111111"};
strlcpy(buf, str, 7);
ASSERT_EQ(buf, {'1', '1', '1', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0'});

On my machine (Debian w/ glibc and clang-16), a printf loop over buf gets unrolled into a series of const printf at compile-time:

printf("%d\n", '1');
printf("%d\n", '1');
printf("%d\n", '1');
printf("%d\n", 0);
printf("%d\n", '1');
printf("%d\n", '1');
printf("%d\n", 0);

Seems best to match existing precedent here.

When running Bionic's testsuite over llvm-libc, tests broke because
e.g.,

```
const char *str = "abc";
char buf[7]{"111111"};
strlcpy(buf, str, 7);
ASSERT_EQ(buf, {'1', '1', '1', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0'});
```

On my machine (Debian w/ glibc and clang-16), a `printf` loop over `buf`
gets unrolled into a series of const `printf`` at compile-time:
```
printf("%d\n", '1');
printf("%d\n", '1');
printf("%d\n", '1');
printf("%d\n", 0);
printf("%d\n", '1');
printf("%d\n", '1');
printf("%d\n", 0);
```

Seems best to match existing precedent here.
@llvmbot
Copy link
Collaborator

llvmbot commented Oct 30, 2024

@llvm/pr-subscribers-libc

Author: George Burgess IV (gburgessiv)

Changes

When running Bionic's testsuite over llvm-libc, tests broke because e.g.,

const char *str = "abc";
char buf[7]{"111111"};
strlcpy(buf, str, 7);
ASSERT_EQ(buf, {'1', '1', '1', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0'});

On my machine (Debian w/ glibc and clang-16), a printf loop over buf gets unrolled into a series of const printf at compile-time:

printf("%d\n", '1');
printf("%d\n", '1');
printf("%d\n", '1');
printf("%d\n", 0);
printf("%d\n", '1');
printf("%d\n", '1');
printf("%d\n", 0);

Seems best to match existing precedent here.


Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/114259.diff

3 Files Affected:

  • (modified) libc/src/string/string_utils.h (+1-1)
  • (modified) libc/test/src/string/strlcat_test.cpp (+9)
  • (modified) libc/test/src/string/strlcpy_test.cpp (+1-2)
diff --git a/libc/src/string/string_utils.h b/libc/src/string/string_utils.h
index 78381e46e480dd..240b28f15718a8 100644
--- a/libc/src/string/string_utils.h
+++ b/libc/src/string/string_utils.h
@@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ LIBC_INLINE size_t strlcpy(char *__restrict dst, const char *__restrict src,
     return len;
   size_t n = len < size - 1 ? len : size - 1;
   inline_memcpy(dst, src, n);
-  inline_bzero(dst + n, size - n);
+  dst[n] = '\0';
   return len;
 }
 
diff --git a/libc/test/src/string/strlcat_test.cpp b/libc/test/src/string/strlcat_test.cpp
index 1ffa4b0e921e2b..5757fc92b39d2a 100644
--- a/libc/test/src/string/strlcat_test.cpp
+++ b/libc/test/src/string/strlcat_test.cpp
@@ -27,6 +27,15 @@ TEST(LlvmLibcStrlcatTest, Smaller) {
   EXPECT_STREQ(buf, "abcd");
 }
 
+TEST(LlvmLibcStrlcatTest, SmallerNoOverwriteAfter0) {
+  const char *str = "cd";
+  char buf[8]{"ab\0\0efg"};
+
+  EXPECT_EQ(LIBC_NAMESPACE::strlcat(buf, str, 8), size_t(4));
+  EXPECT_STREQ(buf, "abcd");
+  EXPECT_STREQ(buf + 5, "fg");
+}
+
 TEST(LlvmLibcStrlcatTest, No0) {
   const char *str = "cd";
   char buf[7]{"ab"};
diff --git a/libc/test/src/string/strlcpy_test.cpp b/libc/test/src/string/strlcpy_test.cpp
index 5a1e30c12963f3..ecf0e925a265c3 100644
--- a/libc/test/src/string/strlcpy_test.cpp
+++ b/libc/test/src/string/strlcpy_test.cpp
@@ -25,6 +25,5 @@ TEST(LlvmLibcStrlcpyTest, Smaller) {
 
   EXPECT_EQ(LIBC_NAMESPACE::strlcpy(buf, str, 7), size_t(3));
   EXPECT_STREQ(buf, "abc");
-  for (const char *p = buf + 3; p < buf + 7; p++)
-    EXPECT_EQ(*p, '\0');
+  EXPECT_STREQ(buf + 4, "11");
 }

Copy link
Member

@nickdesaulniers nickdesaulniers left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks like this mistake has existed since the introduction of this helper b118330

Thanks for the patch!

@gburgessiv
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks for reviewing! I'll press the button once buildkite checks pass.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants