Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

the semantics of pointer validation apis are a bit vague wrt NULL #3954

Open
yamt opened this issue Dec 11, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

the semantics of pointer validation apis are a bit vague wrt NULL #3954

yamt opened this issue Dec 11, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@yamt
Copy link
Collaborator

yamt commented Dec 11, 2024

we provide a few variations of pointer validation functions for embedders.
eg. wasm_runtime_validate_native_addr

however, it's a bit unclear if NULL is considered "valid" or not for these functions.

looking at the implementation of wasm_runtime_validate_native_addr,
it checks the given pointer like the following:

    uint8 *addr = (uint8 *)native_ptr;
if (memory_inst->memory_data <= addr

iirc, "<" operatior on a null pointer is an undefined behavior in C.
i suppose for many of relevant architectures it works as if it was a "zero" address.
and i guess it's what this logic is intended. ie. NULL is NOT a valid pointer.

otoh, wasm_runtime_validate_app_addr seems to consider NULL is valid.
it's understandable because 0 is a valid linear memory address in wasm.
it's however confusing as we sometimes converts wasm NULL to native NULL. (and vice versa.)

anyway, i'd suggest to do:

  • explicitly mention the semantics in the api documentation.
  • avoid relying on an undefined behavior in the implementation.
@TianlongLiang
Copy link
Contributor

so for the implementation, the modification will be like adding a test whether the native pointer is NULL, if it's NULL, return false. right?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants