From: Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.de>
To: rpalethorpe@suse.de
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
ltp@lists.linux.it, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v1] execl(), execlp() and execle() require proper termination of argument list
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2022 09:22:05 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87cz8yurn1.fsf@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87wn7dsudx.fsf@suse.de>
Hello,
Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.de> writes:
> Hello,
>
> Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz> writes:
>
>> On 28. 11. 22 12:11, Petr Vorel wrote:
>>> Hi Michael,
>>> sorry to bother you, could you please comment our discussion about
>>> execl{,e,p}()
>>> termination of argument list being NULL vs. (char *)NULL vs. (void*)0?
>>> Martin reported [2] that man page suggests (char*)NULL, his view of
>>> reason [3]:
>>> NULL may be defined as simple integer 0. When int is 32bit and pointers
>>> 64bit, this will cause trouble in variadic functions such as execlp().
>>> Cyril pointed out [4]: NULL is required to be 0 cast to void* in
>>> POSIX. [5]
>>> Therefore what should be really used?
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Petr
>>> [2]
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/ltp/8587b908-a035-a96a-7233-2863b7bc30ca@suse.cz/
>>> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/ltp/af63ed9a-7108-fd19-fe2c-4b56be85d068@suse.cz/
>>> [4] https://lore.kernel.org/ltp/Y4DSmk7uY9zUUQsV@yuki/
>>> [5] https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/stddef.h.html
>>
>> Cyril is correct that we don't need this fix as long as we use C99 or
>> later with POSIX-compliant build system. The explicit type cast is
>> required only in C++ where there's no explicit conversion from void*
>> to other pointer types and therefore NULL must be defined as integer
>> instead of void* pointer constant.
>>
>> Then again, pedantically following the docs won't break anything either.
>>
>> Acked-by: Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz>
>
> I think the docs are wrong here, they should probably specify where it
> is needed to cast to (char *). We are (now) using a superset of c99 so
> we are not effected.
>
> The issue I see is that this is yet another thing to remember to enforce
> and for no apparent benefit. OTOH if there is some compiler/analyser
> flag which creates a warning then I would not be against adding that.
Setting this to Not Applicable in patchwork. This is not final, but it
will remove it from the queue.
>
> --
> Thank you,
> Richard.
--
Thank you,
Richard.
--
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-05 9:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-25 12:25 [LTP] [PATCH v1] execl(), execlp() and execle() require proper termination of argument list David Hildenbrand
2022-11-25 14:06 ` Petr Vorel
2022-11-28 9:45 ` David Hildenbrand
2022-11-28 11:11 ` Petr Vorel
2022-11-28 12:00 ` Martin Doucha
2022-11-29 14:22 ` Richard Palethorpe
2022-12-05 9:22 ` Richard Palethorpe [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87cz8yurn1.fsf@suse.de \
--to=rpalethorpe@suse.de \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox