Message ID | b8ac6c7a5f699c6073efb0bb4beb2c79fac40a64.1471452664.git.zackw@panix.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
LGTM. On 17/08/2016 14:19, Zack Weinberg wrote: > This was formerly bundled with the tests for fortification of > explicit_bzero, but is unconnected and I'd like to go ahead and land > it ASAP. > > zw > > * debug/tst-chk1.c: Add tests for fortification of bcopy and bzero. > --- > debug/tst-chk1.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/debug/tst-chk1.c b/debug/tst-chk1.c > index 4f968ee..478c2fb 100644 > --- a/debug/tst-chk1.c > +++ b/debug/tst-chk1.c > @@ -143,6 +143,11 @@ do_test (void) > if (memcmp (buf, "aabcdefghi", 10)) > FAIL (); > > + memcpy (buf, "abcdefghij", 10); > + bcopy (buf, buf + 1, 9); > + if (memcmp (buf, "aabcdefghi", 10)) > + FAIL (); > + > if (mempcpy (buf + 5, "abcde", 5) != buf + 10 > || memcmp (buf, "aabcdabcde", 10)) > FAIL (); > @@ -151,6 +156,10 @@ do_test (void) > if (memcmp (buf, "aabcdabcjj", 10)) > FAIL (); > > + bzero (buf + 8, 2); > + if (memcmp (buf, "aabcdabc\0\0", 10)) > + FAIL (); > + > strcpy (buf + 4, "EDCBA"); > if (memcmp (buf, "aabcEDCBA", 10)) > FAIL (); > @@ -175,6 +184,11 @@ do_test (void) > if (memcmp (buf, "aabcdefghi", 10)) > FAIL (); > > + memcpy (buf, "abcdefghij", l0 + 10); > + bcopy (buf, buf + 1, l0 + 9); > + if (memcmp (buf, "aabcdefghi", 10)) > + FAIL (); > + > if (mempcpy (buf + 5, "abcde", l0 + 5) != buf + 10 > || memcmp (buf, "aabcdabcde", 10)) > FAIL (); > @@ -183,6 +197,10 @@ do_test (void) > if (memcmp (buf, "aabcdabcjj", 10)) > FAIL (); > > + bzero (buf + 8, l0 + 2); > + if (memcmp (buf, "aabcdabc\0\0", 10)) > + FAIL (); > + > strcpy (buf + 4, str1 + 5); > if (memcmp (buf, "aabcEDCBA", 10)) > FAIL (); > @@ -214,11 +232,18 @@ do_test (void) > if (memcmp (buf, "aabcEcdZY", 10)) > FAIL (); > > + /* The following tests are supposed to succeed at all fortify > + levels, even though they overflow a.buf1 into a.buf2. */ > memcpy (a.buf1, "abcdefghij", l0 + 10); > memmove (a.buf1 + 1, a.buf1, l0 + 9); > if (memcmp (a.buf1, "aabcdefghi", 10)) > FAIL (); > > + memcpy (a.buf1, "abcdefghij", l0 + 10); > + bcopy (a.buf1, a.buf1 + 1, l0 + 9); > + if (memcmp (a.buf1, "aabcdefghi", 10)) > + FAIL (); > + > if (mempcpy (a.buf1 + 5, "abcde", l0 + 5) != a.buf1 + 10 > || memcmp (a.buf1, "aabcdabcde", 10)) > FAIL (); > @@ -227,6 +252,10 @@ do_test (void) > if (memcmp (a.buf1, "aabcdabcjj", 10)) > FAIL (); > > + bzero (a.buf1 + 8, l0 + 2); > + if (memcmp (a.buf1, "aabcdabc\0\0", 10)) > + FAIL (); > + > #if __USE_FORTIFY_LEVEL < 2 > /* The following tests are supposed to crash with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 > and sufficient GCC support, as the string operations overflow > @@ -284,6 +313,14 @@ do_test (void) > memmove (buf + 2, buf + 1, l0 + 9); > CHK_FAIL_END > > + CHK_FAIL_START > + bcopy (buf + 1, buf + 2, 9); > + CHK_FAIL_END > + > + CHK_FAIL_START > + bcopy (buf + 1, buf + 2, l0 + 9); > + CHK_FAIL_END > + > CHK_FAIL_START > p = (char *) mempcpy (buf + 6, "abcde", 5); > CHK_FAIL_END > @@ -300,6 +337,14 @@ do_test (void) > memset (buf + 9, 'j', l0 + 2); > CHK_FAIL_END > > + CHK_FAIL_START > + bzero (buf + 9, 2); > + CHK_FAIL_END > + > + CHK_FAIL_START > + bzero (buf + 9, l0 + 2); > + CHK_FAIL_END > + > CHK_FAIL_START > strcpy (buf + 5, str1 + 5); > CHK_FAIL_END > @@ -377,6 +422,14 @@ do_test (void) > memmove (a.buf1 + 2, a.buf1 + 1, l0 + 9); > CHK_FAIL_END > > + CHK_FAIL_START > + bcopy (a.buf1 + 1, a.buf1 + 2, 9); > + CHK_FAIL_END > + > + CHK_FAIL_START > + bcopy (a.buf1 + 1, a.buf1 + 2, l0 + 9); > + CHK_FAIL_END > + > CHK_FAIL_START > p = (char *) mempcpy (a.buf1 + 6, "abcde", 5); > CHK_FAIL_END > @@ -393,6 +446,14 @@ do_test (void) > memset (a.buf1 + 9, 'j', l0 + 2); > CHK_FAIL_END > > + CHK_FAIL_START > + bzero (a.buf1 + 9, 2); > + CHK_FAIL_END > + > + CHK_FAIL_START > + bzero (a.buf1 + 9, l0 + 2); > + CHK_FAIL_END > + > # if __USE_FORTIFY_LEVEL >= 2 > # define O 0 > # else >
On 08/19/2016 08:49 AM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: > On 17/08/2016 14:19, Zack Weinberg wrote: >> This was formerly bundled with the tests for fortification of >> explicit_bzero, but is unconnected and I'd like to go ahead and land >> it ASAP. > > LGTM. Committed. zw
diff --git a/debug/tst-chk1.c b/debug/tst-chk1.c index 4f968ee..478c2fb 100644 --- a/debug/tst-chk1.c +++ b/debug/tst-chk1.c @@ -143,6 +143,11 @@ do_test (void) if (memcmp (buf, "aabcdefghi", 10)) FAIL (); + memcpy (buf, "abcdefghij", 10); + bcopy (buf, buf + 1, 9); + if (memcmp (buf, "aabcdefghi", 10)) + FAIL (); + if (mempcpy (buf + 5, "abcde", 5) != buf + 10 || memcmp (buf, "aabcdabcde", 10)) FAIL (); @@ -151,6 +156,10 @@ do_test (void) if (memcmp (buf, "aabcdabcjj", 10)) FAIL (); + bzero (buf + 8, 2); + if (memcmp (buf, "aabcdabc\0\0", 10)) + FAIL (); + strcpy (buf + 4, "EDCBA"); if (memcmp (buf, "aabcEDCBA", 10)) FAIL (); @@ -175,6 +184,11 @@ do_test (void) if (memcmp (buf, "aabcdefghi", 10)) FAIL (); + memcpy (buf, "abcdefghij", l0 + 10); + bcopy (buf, buf + 1, l0 + 9); + if (memcmp (buf, "aabcdefghi", 10)) + FAIL (); + if (mempcpy (buf + 5, "abcde", l0 + 5) != buf + 10 || memcmp (buf, "aabcdabcde", 10)) FAIL (); @@ -183,6 +197,10 @@ do_test (void) if (memcmp (buf, "aabcdabcjj", 10)) FAIL (); + bzero (buf + 8, l0 + 2); + if (memcmp (buf, "aabcdabc\0\0", 10)) + FAIL (); + strcpy (buf + 4, str1 + 5); if (memcmp (buf, "aabcEDCBA", 10)) FAIL (); @@ -214,11 +232,18 @@ do_test (void) if (memcmp (buf, "aabcEcdZY", 10)) FAIL (); + /* The following tests are supposed to succeed at all fortify + levels, even though they overflow a.buf1 into a.buf2. */ memcpy (a.buf1, "abcdefghij", l0 + 10); memmove (a.buf1 + 1, a.buf1, l0 + 9); if (memcmp (a.buf1, "aabcdefghi", 10)) FAIL (); + memcpy (a.buf1, "abcdefghij", l0 + 10); + bcopy (a.buf1, a.buf1 + 1, l0 + 9); + if (memcmp (a.buf1, "aabcdefghi", 10)) + FAIL (); + if (mempcpy (a.buf1 + 5, "abcde", l0 + 5) != a.buf1 + 10 || memcmp (a.buf1, "aabcdabcde", 10)) FAIL (); @@ -227,6 +252,10 @@ do_test (void) if (memcmp (a.buf1, "aabcdabcjj", 10)) FAIL (); + bzero (a.buf1 + 8, l0 + 2); + if (memcmp (a.buf1, "aabcdabc\0\0", 10)) + FAIL (); + #if __USE_FORTIFY_LEVEL < 2 /* The following tests are supposed to crash with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 and sufficient GCC support, as the string operations overflow @@ -284,6 +313,14 @@ do_test (void) memmove (buf + 2, buf + 1, l0 + 9); CHK_FAIL_END + CHK_FAIL_START + bcopy (buf + 1, buf + 2, 9); + CHK_FAIL_END + + CHK_FAIL_START + bcopy (buf + 1, buf + 2, l0 + 9); + CHK_FAIL_END + CHK_FAIL_START p = (char *) mempcpy (buf + 6, "abcde", 5); CHK_FAIL_END @@ -300,6 +337,14 @@ do_test (void) memset (buf + 9, 'j', l0 + 2); CHK_FAIL_END + CHK_FAIL_START + bzero (buf + 9, 2); + CHK_FAIL_END + + CHK_FAIL_START + bzero (buf + 9, l0 + 2); + CHK_FAIL_END + CHK_FAIL_START strcpy (buf + 5, str1 + 5); CHK_FAIL_END @@ -377,6 +422,14 @@ do_test (void) memmove (a.buf1 + 2, a.buf1 + 1, l0 + 9); CHK_FAIL_END + CHK_FAIL_START + bcopy (a.buf1 + 1, a.buf1 + 2, 9); + CHK_FAIL_END + + CHK_FAIL_START + bcopy (a.buf1 + 1, a.buf1 + 2, l0 + 9); + CHK_FAIL_END + CHK_FAIL_START p = (char *) mempcpy (a.buf1 + 6, "abcde", 5); CHK_FAIL_END @@ -393,6 +446,14 @@ do_test (void) memset (a.buf1 + 9, 'j', l0 + 2); CHK_FAIL_END + CHK_FAIL_START + bzero (a.buf1 + 9, 2); + CHK_FAIL_END + + CHK_FAIL_START + bzero (a.buf1 + 9, l0 + 2); + CHK_FAIL_END + # if __USE_FORTIFY_LEVEL >= 2 # define O 0 # else