This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 1/5] Poison non-POD memset & non-trivially-copyable memcpy/memmove


On 2017-04-27 09:58, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 04/24/2017 02:53 AM, Simon Marchi wrote:
Actually, it should probably use std::is_trivially_constructible.
And I
suppose we could do the same with xfree, delete it when
!std::is_trivially_destructible.


I think you wanted std::is_trivially_default_constructible
for XNEW.

From what I understand, using is_trivially_default_constructible<T> is the same as is_trivially_constructible<T>. We can of course use is_trivially_default_constructible if it's clearer.

I think that we want _both_ conditions (*constructible
and *destructible) on both XNEW and xfree.  For example, it'll be
good to catch the mismatching new/delete that could sneak in otherwise:

That seems reasonnable. We want to "upgrade" to new and delete in a lock step anyway.

 // type with trivial constructor
 struct A
 {
   // A() = default;
   ~A() { /* do something with side effects */ } // not trivial
 };

 // type with trivial destructor
 struct B
 {
   B() { /* do something with side effects */ } // not trivial
   //~B() = default;
 };

 void foo ()
 {
   A *a = XNEW (struct A);
   delete a;
   B *b = new B;
   xfree (b);
 }

Calling delete on a pointer not allocated with new is undefined behavior.
These mismatches are also flagged by -fsanitize=address, but
making them compile-time errors would be even better.

This wouldn't catch allocating types that are both trivially
default constructible and trivially destructible, and which _also_
have non-default ctors, like this, for example:

 struct C
 {
   C() = default;
   explicit C(int) { /* some side effects */ }
 };

 static_assert (std::is_trivially_default_constructible<C>::value, "");
 static_assert (std::is_trivially_destructible<C>::value, "");

 C *b = new C(1);
 xfree (b); // whoops, technically undefined.  -fsanitify=address
likely complains.

but std::is_pod wouldn't either.

If we make a type non-standard-layout, then it no longer is POD:

 struct D
 {
  // Mix of public/private fields => not POD
 public:
   int a;
 private:
   int b;
 };

This (D) case is likely to not really be problematic in practice WRT
to allocation/deallocation with malloc/free, but it still feels
like a code smell to me.  I'd be willing to try forcing use
of new/delete for these types too.  This would suggest using the
bigger std::is_pod hammer in XNEW/xfree instead of just
std::is_trivially_*ctible.  But I'd understand if others disagree.

I think it would be a good guideline to use new/delete for types that have some C++-related stuff in them, even if it's not technically necessary.

Note that this won't be bulletproof also because at many places xfree is used on a void pointer, so we don't know what we're really free'ing. In some other cases, objects are freed using a pointer to their "C base class".

Simon


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]