Re: [PATCH v2] lib/string.c: implement stpcpy

Arvind Sankar
2020-08-15T22:06:44Z

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 07:09:44PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> LLVM implemented a recent "libcall optimization" that lowers calls to
> `sprintf(dest, "%s", str)` where the return value is used to
> `stpcpy(dest, str) - dest`. This generally avoids the machinery involved
> in parsing format strings. Calling `sprintf` with overlapping arguments
> was clarified in ISO C99 and POSIX.1-2001 to be undefined behavior.
>
> `stpcpy` is just like `strcpy` except it returns the pointer to the new
> tail of `dest`. This allows you to chain multiple calls to `stpcpy` in
> one statement.
>
> `stpcpy` was first standardized in POSIX.1-2008.
>
> Implement this so that we don't observe linkage failures due to missing
> symbol definitions for `stpcpy`.
>
> Similar to last year's fire drill with:
> commit 5f074f3e192f ("lib/string.c: implement a basic bcmp")
>
> This optimization was introduced into clang-12.
>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Link: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47162
> Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/1126
> Link: https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/stpcpy.3.html
> Link: https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/stpcpy.html
> Link: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85963
> Suggested-by: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
> Suggested-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> Reported-by: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
> Tested-by: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
> ---
> Changes V2:
> * Added Sami's Tested by; though the patch changed implementation, the
> missing symbol at link time was the problem Sami was observing.
> * Fix __restrict -> __restrict__ typo as per Joe.
> * Drop note about restrict from commit message as per Arvind.
> * Fix NULL -> NUL as per Arvind; NUL is ASCII '\0'. TIL
> * Fix off by one error as per Arvind; I had another off by one error in
> my test program that was masking this.
>
> include/linux/string.h | 3 +++
> lib/string.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/string.h b/include/linux/string.h
> index b1f3894a0a3e..7686dbca8582 100644
> --- a/include/linux/string.h
> +++ b/include/linux/string.h
> @@ -31,6 +31,9 @@ size_t strlcpy(char *, const char *, size_t);
> #ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_STRSCPY
> ssize_t strscpy(char *, const char *, size_t);
> #endif
> +#ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_STPCPY
> +extern char *stpcpy(char *__restrict__, const char *__restrict__);
> +#endif
>
> /* Wraps calls to strscpy()/memset(), no arch specific code required */
> ssize_t strscpy_pad(char *dest, const char *src, size_t count);
> diff --git a/lib/string.c b/lib/string.c
> index 6012c385fb31..68ddbffbbd58 100644
> --- a/lib/string.c
> +++ b/lib/string.c
> @@ -272,6 +272,29 @@ ssize_t strscpy_pad(char *dest, const char *src, size_t count)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(strscpy_pad);
>
> +#ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_STPCPY
> +/**
> + * stpcpy - copy a string from src to dest returning a pointer to the new end
> + * of dest, including src's NUL terminator. May overrun dest.
> + * @dest: pointer to end of string being copied into. Must be large enough
> + * to receive copy.
> + * @src: pointer to the beginning of string being copied from. Must not overlap
> + * dest.
> + *
> + * stpcpy differs from strcpy in two key ways:
> + * 1. inputs must not overlap.

Looks like you missed my second email: strcpy also does not allow inputs
to overlap. Couple typos below.

> + * 2. return value is the new NULL terminated character. (for strcpy, the
^^ NUL terminator.
> + * return value is a pointer to src.
^^ dest.)
> + */
> +#undef stpcpy
> +char *stpcpy(char *__restrict__ dest, const char *__restrict__ src)
> +{
> + while ((*dest++ = *src++) != '\0')
> + /* nothing */;
> + return --dest;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> #ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_STRCAT
> /**
> * strcat - Append one %NUL-terminated string to another
> --
> 2.28.0.220.ged08abb693-goog
>

The kernel-doc comments in string.c currently have a mix of %NUL and
NUL, but the former seems to be more common. %NUL-terminator appears to
be the preferred wording.