Re: [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH v4 1/3] qtest: replace strtoXX() by qemu_strtoXX()

[Greg Kurz]

On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 20:17:00 +0200
Laurent Vivier <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 06/09/2016 17:55, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > On Tue,  6 Sep 2016 15:17:55 +0200
> > Laurent Vivier <address@hidden> wrote:
> >   
> >> Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <address@hidden>
> >> ---  
> > 
> > The patch also adds error checking and assertions. Maybe worth to be 
> > mentioned
> > in the changelog...  
> 
> In case of a new version of the patch, I will...
> 
> >   
> >> v4:
> >> - add this patch in the series to change all strtoXX() in qtest.c
> >>
> >>  qtest.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> >>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/qtest.c b/qtest.c
> >> index da4826c..4c94708 100644
> >> --- a/qtest.c
> >> +++ b/qtest.c
> >> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
> >>  #include "qemu/config-file.h"
> >>  #include "qemu/option.h"
> >>  #include "qemu/error-report.h"
> >> +#include "qemu/cutils.h"
> >>  
> >>  #define MAX_IRQ 256
> >>  
> >> @@ -324,12 +325,13 @@ static void qtest_process_command(CharDriverState 
> >> *chr, gchar **words)
> >>      } else if (strcmp(words[0], "outb") == 0 ||
> >>                 strcmp(words[0], "outw") == 0 ||
> >>                 strcmp(words[0], "outl") == 0) {
> >> -        uint16_t addr;
> >> -        uint32_t value;
> >> +        unsigned long addr;
> >> +        unsigned long value;
> >>  
> >>          g_assert(words[1] && words[2]);
> >> -        addr = strtoul(words[1], NULL, 0);
> >> -        value = strtoul(words[2], NULL, 0);
> >> +        g_assert(qemu_strtoul(words[1], NULL, 0, &addr) == 0);
> >> +        g_assert(qemu_strtoul(words[2], NULL, 0, &value) == 0);
> >> +        g_assert(addr <= 0xffff);
> >>  
> >>          if (words[0][3] == 'b') {
> >>              cpu_outb(addr, value);
> >> @@ -343,11 +345,12 @@ static void qtest_process_command(CharDriverState 
> >> *chr, gchar **words)
> >>      } else if (strcmp(words[0], "inb") == 0 ||
> >>          strcmp(words[0], "inw") == 0 ||
> >>          strcmp(words[0], "inl") == 0) {
> >> -        uint16_t addr;
> >> +        unsigned long addr;
> >>          uint32_t value = -1U;
> >>  
> >>          g_assert(words[1]);
> >> -        addr = strtoul(words[1], NULL, 0);
> >> +        g_assert(qemu_strtoul(words[1], NULL, 0, &addr) == 0);
> >> +        g_assert(addr <= 0xffff);
> >>  
> >>          if (words[0][2] == 'b') {
> >>              value = cpu_inb(addr);
> >> @@ -366,8 +369,8 @@ static void qtest_process_command(CharDriverState 
> >> *chr, gchar **words)
> >>          uint64_t value;
> >>  
> >>          g_assert(words[1] && words[2]);
> >> -        addr = strtoull(words[1], NULL, 0);
> >> -        value = strtoull(words[2], NULL, 0);
> >> +        g_assert(qemu_strtoull(words[1], NULL, 0, &addr) == 0);
> >> +        g_assert(qemu_strtoull(words[2], NULL, 0, &value) == 0);
> >>  
> >>          if (words[0][5] == 'b') {
> >>              uint8_t data = value;
> >> @@ -395,7 +398,7 @@ static void qtest_process_command(CharDriverState 
> >> *chr, gchar **words)
> >>          uint64_t value = UINT64_C(-1);
> >>  
> >>          g_assert(words[1]);
> >> -        addr = strtoull(words[1], NULL, 0);
> >> +        g_assert(qemu_strtoull(words[1], NULL, 0, &addr) == 0);
> >>  
> >>          if (words[0][4] == 'b') {
> >>              uint8_t data;
> >> @@ -421,8 +424,8 @@ static void qtest_process_command(CharDriverState 
> >> *chr, gchar **words)
> >>          char *enc;
> >>  
> >>          g_assert(words[1] && words[2]);
> >> -        addr = strtoull(words[1], NULL, 0);
> >> -        len = strtoull(words[2], NULL, 0);
> >> +        g_assert(qemu_strtoull(words[1], NULL, 0, &addr) == 0);
> >> +        g_assert(qemu_strtoull(words[2], NULL, 0, &len) == 0);
> >>  
> >>          data = g_malloc(len);
> >>          cpu_physical_memory_read(addr, data, len);
> >> @@ -443,8 +446,8 @@ static void qtest_process_command(CharDriverState 
> >> *chr, gchar **words)
> >>          gchar *b64_data;
> >>  
> >>          g_assert(words[1] && words[2]);
> >> -        addr = strtoull(words[1], NULL, 0);
> >> -        len = strtoull(words[2], NULL, 0);
> >> +        g_assert(qemu_strtoull(words[1], NULL, 0, &addr) == 0);
> >> +        g_assert(qemu_strtoull(words[2], NULL, 0, &len) == 0);
> >>  
> >>          data = g_malloc(len);
> >>          cpu_physical_memory_read(addr, data, len);
> >> @@ -460,8 +463,8 @@ static void qtest_process_command(CharDriverState 
> >> *chr, gchar **words)
> >>          size_t data_len;
> >>  
> >>          g_assert(words[1] && words[2] && words[3]);
> >> -        addr = strtoull(words[1], NULL, 0);
> >> -        len = strtoull(words[2], NULL, 0);
> >> +        g_assert(qemu_strtoull(words[1], NULL, 0, &addr) == 0);
> >> +        g_assert(qemu_strtoull(words[2], NULL, 0, &len) == 0);
> >>  
> >>          data_len = strlen(words[3]);
> >>          if (data_len < 3) {
> >> @@ -486,12 +489,12 @@ static void qtest_process_command(CharDriverState 
> >> *chr, gchar **words)
> >>      } else if (strcmp(words[0], "memset") == 0) {
> >>          uint64_t addr, len;
> >>          uint8_t *data;
> >> -        uint8_t pattern;
> >> +        unsigned long pattern;
> >>  
> >>          g_assert(words[1] && words[2] && words[3]);
> >> -        addr = strtoull(words[1], NULL, 0);
> >> -        len = strtoull(words[2], NULL, 0);
> >> -        pattern = strtoull(words[3], NULL, 0);
> >> +        g_assert(qemu_strtoull(words[1], NULL, 0, &addr) == 0);
> >> +        g_assert(qemu_strtoull(words[2], NULL, 0, &len) == 0);
> >> +        g_assert(qemu_strtoul(words[3], NULL, 0, &pattern) == 0);  
> > 
> > And:
> > 
> > g_assert(pattern <= 0xff)  
> 
> I think pattern > 0xff is valid as memset() takes an "int" and only uses
> the byte value (for instance to use -1 to fill memory with 0xff). It
> can't do bad things...
> 

Of course... sorry for the noise :)

> In the previous case ("g_assert(addr <= 0xffff)"), if addr > 0xffff,
> cpu_out/in can write at a bad address. We could just ignore the upper
> part of the word, but to debug test case I think it's good to have an
> assert in this case.
> 

It makes sense indeed.

> Thanks,
> Laurent

Cheers.

--
Greg