Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Re: [PATCH] QUIC: better sockaddr initialization

Maxim Dounin
May 21, 2023 05:24PM
Hello!

On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 04:35:00PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:

> On 5/21/23 15:09, Maxim Dounin wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 11:31:32AM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/21/23 03:42, Maxim Dounin wrote:
> >>> # HG changeset patch
> >>> # User Maxim Dounin <mdounin@mdounin.ru>
> >>> # Date 1684633125 -10800
> >>> # Sun May 21 04:38:45 2023 +0300
> >>> # Node ID 68fa4b86ed46138dd1a8fcf2cfd80206de068bec
> >>> # Parent 235d482ef6bc8c40a956b2413865d42c94e0fc05
> >>> QUIC: better sockaddr initialization.
> >>>
> >>> The qsock->sockaddr field is a ngx_sockaddr_t union, and therefore can hold
> >>> any sockaddr (and union members, such qsock->sockaddr.sockaddr, can be used
> >>> to access appropriate variant of the sockaddr). It is better to set it via
> >>> qsock->sockaddr itself though, and not qsock->sockaddr.sockaddr, so static
> >>> analyzers won't complain about out-of-bounds access.
> >>
> >> Correct. The previous code was UB, due to memcpy(3) writing to the
> >> 'struct sockaddr' member. By writing to sockaddr, you were only
> >> allowed to alias via other members the sa_family_t field, but no
> >> others.
> >
> > Well, not really. There is no UB in the previous code, it simply
> > uses a valid (void *) address to fill the sockaddr (and does so
> > without breaking strict aliasing rules).
>
> While the data being written was correctly written via memcpy(3),
> you wouldn't be allowed to access it later as anything that is
> not 'struct sockaddr'. For example, the following is a
> strict-aliasing violation:
>
> struct s { int a; int b; };
> struct t { int a; };
> union u { struct s s; struct t t; };
>
> struct s x = {42, 42};
> union u y;
> int z;
>
> memcpy(&y.t, &x, sizeof(x)); // This is fine
>
> // We created an object of type 'struct t' in the union.
> // Unions allow aliasing, so we're allowed to reinterpret
> // that object as a 'struct s' via the other member.
>
> z = y.s.a; // This is fine.
>
> // But we're not allowed to reinterpret bytes that are
> // officially uninitialized (even though we know they are
> // initialized).
>
> z = y.s.b; // UB here.
>
> The reason for the UB is that the compiler is free to assume
> that since you wrote to the struct t member, the write can't
> possibly write to the second member of the struct (even if
> the size passed to memcpy(3) is larger than that). In other
> words, the compiler may assume that anything past
> sizeof(struct t) is uninitialized.

You haven't wrote to the struct t member, you wrote to the address
using memcpy(). There is a difference, see C99 (or C11, whichever
you prefer), 6.5 Expressions.

> Also, writing past an
> object is very dubious, even via memcpy(3), even if you know
> that the storage is there (thanks to the union). It's just
> safer writing to the union itself, or to the field that has
> the correct object type.

And that's why the patch. While it is correct to write to the
memory with any pointer, using the union itself is more obvious
and causes less confusion.

[...]

--
Maxim Dounin
http://mdounin.ru/
_______________________________________________
nginx-devel mailing list
nginx-devel@nginx.org
https://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx-devel
Subject Author Views Posted

[PATCH] QUIC: better sockaddr initialization

Maxim Dounin 261 May 20, 2023 09:44PM

Re: [PATCH] QUIC: better sockaddr initialization

Roman Arutyunyan 74 May 21, 2023 05:08AM

Re: [PATCH] QUIC: better sockaddr initialization

Maxim Dounin 73 May 21, 2023 08:58AM

Re: [PATCH] QUIC: better sockaddr initialization

Alejandro Colomar 91 May 21, 2023 05:32AM

Re: [PATCH] QUIC: better sockaddr initialization

Maxim Dounin 80 May 21, 2023 09:12AM

Re: [PATCH] QUIC: better sockaddr initialization

Alejandro Colomar 70 May 21, 2023 10:36AM

Re: [PATCH] QUIC: better sockaddr initialization

Maxim Dounin 80 May 21, 2023 05:24PM

Re: [PATCH] QUIC: better sockaddr initialization

Alejandro Colomar 107 May 21, 2023 07:08PM

Re: [PATCH] QUIC: better sockaddr initialization

Maxim Dounin 78 May 21, 2023 10:36PM

memcpy(3), strict aliasing, pointer provenance rules (was: [PATCH] QUIC: better sockaddr initialization)

Alejandro Colomar 109 May 22, 2023 10:26AM

Re: memcpy(3), strict aliasing, pointer provenance rules (was: [PATCH] QUIC: better sockaddr initialization)

Maxim Dounin 121 May 22, 2023 04:06PM



Sorry, you do not have permission to post/reply in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 78
Record Number of Users: 8 on April 13, 2023
Record Number of Guests: 421 on December 02, 2018
Powered by nginx      Powered by FreeBSD      PHP Powered      Powered by MariaDB      ipv6 ready