[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH-for-5.2 1/5] hw/core/qdev-properties: Simplify get_reserved_r
From: |
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH-for-5.2 1/5] hw/core/qdev-properties: Simplify get_reserved_region() |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:38:12 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0 |
On 7/16/20 10:29 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> Use the safer g_strdup_printf() over snprintf() + abort().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> hw/core/qdev-properties.c | 9 +++------
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/core/qdev-properties.c b/hw/core/qdev-properties.c
>> index 098298c78e..d5f5aa150b 100644
>> --- a/hw/core/qdev-properties.c
>> +++ b/hw/core/qdev-properties.c
>> @@ -581,13 +581,10 @@ static void get_reserved_region(Object *obj, Visitor
>> *v, const char *name,
>> DeviceState *dev = DEVICE(obj);
>> Property *prop = opaque;
>> ReservedRegion *rr = qdev_get_prop_ptr(dev, prop);
>> - char buffer[64];
>> - char *p = buffer;
>> - int rc;
>> + g_autofree char *p;
>>
>> - rc = snprintf(buffer, sizeof(buffer), "0x%"PRIx64":0x%"PRIx64":%u",
>> - rr->low, rr->high, rr->type);
>> - assert(rc < sizeof(buffer));
>> + p = g_strdup_printf("0x%"PRIx64":0x%"PRIx64":%u",
>> + rr->low, rr->high, rr->type);
>>
>> visit_type_str(v, name, &p, errp);
>> }
>
> I don't buy "safer" (the old code is already safe).
I'm suspicious when I find an assert/abort in a code reachable by
management interface, as IIUC we don't want to crash the process.
I agree this shouldn't happen and if it happens we are screwed
anyway.
> I could buy
> "simpler".
>
> It's also less efficient, but that shouldn't matter in a property
> getter.
If we want more efficient code, we should replace all the
g_strdup_printf() calls by snprintf() + assert() in the places
where we don't expect failure. This seems counterproductive from
a maintenance PoV. At some point we should make a decision and
not allow more than 3 similar APIs at a time. We have been
recommended to use GLib instead of snprintf() because it is "safer".
Can we be consistent with recommendations? Else we should stop
recommending to use GLib and friends.
Thanks,
Phil.
- [RFC PATCH-for-5.2 0/5] qom: Let ObjectPropertyGet functions return a boolean value, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, 2020/07/15
- [PATCH-for-5.2 1/5] hw/core/qdev-properties: Simplify get_reserved_region(), Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, 2020/07/15
- [RFC PATCH-for-5.2 2/5] qom: Split ObjectPropertyAccessor as ObjectProperty[Get/Set], Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, 2020/07/15
- [PATCH-for-5.2 3/5] qom: Use g_autofree in ObjectPropertyGet functions, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, 2020/07/15
- [RFC PATCH-for-5.2 5/5] hw/virtio: Simplify virtio_mem_set_requested_size(), Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, 2020/07/15
- [RFC PATCH-for-5.2 4/5] qom: Let ObjectPropertyGet functions return a boolean value, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, 2020/07/15
- Re: [RFC PATCH-for-5.2 0/5] qom: Let ObjectPropertyGet functions return a boolean value, Markus Armbruster, 2020/07/16