Hey Andrew, Thanks once again for your comments, mine are inline.
Best regards, Marvin Am 20.02.2020 um 00:55 schrieb Andrew Fish: > > >> On Feb 17, 2020, at 12:26 AM, Marvin Häuser <mhaeu...@outlook.de >> <mailto:mhaeu...@outlook.de>> wrote: >> >> Good day Andrew, >> >> First of all, thank you very much for putting this amount of thought >> into the situation. I definitely agree with the problem you see, but I >> could also live with Vitaly's proposal. However, I think you are >> overcomplicating the situation a little. So, we do agree the caller >> needs control of the behaviour, however your proposal needs "support" >> from both the caller (choose the handler) and the callee (call the >> handler) and is neither thread-safe nor event-safe as Vitaly already >> pointed out. Fixing these problems would only worsen the complexity >> situation in my opinion. > > Well EFI does not have Threads but it does have Events. I agree if an Sorry, we were refering to the UEFI Multi-Processor services, so threads in a physical sense. I think very similar concerns apply regarding these services as with software multithreading in this context, please correct me if I'm wrong. > Event handler changes the constraint handler it would need to restore it > so my proposal is missing an API. > > CONSTRAINT_HANDLER * > GetConstraintHandler ( > VOID > ) > { > return gActiveConstraintHandler; > } > > You an always use the standard EFI > > It is important to remember that all the EFI images > (drivers/applications) are statically linked and they carry a unique > instance of the Debug (or new Constraint) lib. So in your driver or App > is very self contained. Also a lot of the events are phase related > callbacks, and since there are no threads your drivers main thread is > only really running when your driver, or app, dispatches. A lot of the > callbacks are via protocols your driver publishes, but they have strict > TPL rules so you can prevent reentrancy in general. So there is a lot > more determinism in EFI vs. generic threaded coding. This is true, but yet all edge-cases should be covered (event "interruption", actual (processor) interrupts, Multi-Processor execution), so developers do not run into unexpected (seemingly) undeterministic behaviour. However, I agree it is easier to ensure for something like UEFI than for a full-fledged OS of course. > >> >> Diverging from both of your concepts entirely and keeping it very >> simple, what keeps us from simply ASSERTing based on return value? We >> could introduce a CONSTRAINT_ASSERT or similar, but it would be >> completely different from Vitaly's proposal. It would be a caller macro >> to ASSERT based on a pre-defined list of return statuses. >> To achieve this, we would order all statuses by types (classes). At the >> moment, I can only think of two: "environmental" and "constraint". For >> example, "Out Of Resources" would be environmental and "Invalid >> Parameter" would be constraint. We could define environment statuses >> explicitly (as it is less likely new environment statuses are >> introduced) and define constraint statuses as "not environmental" (to >> silently support new constraint statuses, however of course it is a >> little error-prone with forwards-compatibility). As a bonus, it forces >> developers to use truly appropiate error codes and correctly propagate >> them from callees for this to work. :) >> This solution would be backwards-compatible in a compilation sense as it >> can simply be a new macro, however for its possible complexity (switch >> cases) I might actually prefer a function. But it would not be >> backwards-compatible with the current functionality, which none of the >> "caller-based" concepts can be anyway (the caller needs explicit code). >> > > It is an interesting idea to add granularity, but at the end of the > knowledge of the correct behavior of the lower level library code really > lives in code that calls this. I will admit I can see some value to > making RETURN_INVALID_PARAMETER different than RETURN_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL. So far, I prefer this idea as the only requirement is that function contracts are well-designed (i.e. reflect environmental vs constraint errors by using sensical return values). > > I kind of went down the C11 path (thanks for mentioning the event issue) > but there are other ways to empower the caller. It's definitely always a good idea to stick to standards and conventions. It appears my proposal is not conventional at all. However, I also believe there sometimes is a more pragmatic approach to things without imposing significant disadvantages, especially by limiting the scope. To be honest, I'm now interested for which cases the C11 path is advantagous over my approach, except that setting the constraint handler is a one-time thing if it remains consistent throughout execution. I'd imagine for some more complex handling logic I cannot think of an example of (all we really want to do is ASSERT conditionally afterall), and I hope this is not something edk2 would ever run into - keep it simple in my opinion. > > We could let the caller decide the behavior. That implies passing > CHECK_DEFAULT (PCD), CHECK_ASSERT, or CHECK_NULL. > > Then keep backward compatibility. > #define StrCpyS(Destination,DestMax,Source)StrCpuSC(Destination, > DestMax, Source, CHECK_DEFAULT) > > But that seems like a lot of thrash to the BaseLib and a lot of new > magic to teach developers. Fully agreed with the last sentence. That was one of the approaches I mentioned before my proposal, but I included it only for completeness' sake so we have a full overview. This requires prototype adaption for literally every function that may be used in such a way (which scopes beyond just BaseLib), ugly macros and more. Please don't do that. :) > > I would guess that the most common usage of my library would be to turn > Constraint Checking off in the entire driver or app and then handle the > errors manually. I'm afraid that's what most platforms will end up with. Our main concern was we may not allow such constraint violations to ASSERT, that is our main objective. However, if it can be made advantageous to future coding practice, it would be nice to have a decent solution for the caller to have some freedom. More about that below. > > On driver/app entry do: > > SetConstraintHandler (IgnoreConstraintHandler); > > Then handle the errors you care about. > > Status = StrCpyS (Destination,DestMax,Source); > if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) { > ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status); > return Status; > } > > or > > Status = StrCpyS (Destination,DestMax,Source); > if (Status == RETURN_INVALID_PARAMETER) { > ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status); > return Status; > } > > At the end of the day I've code my driver and I know the rules I coded > to and I want predictable behavior. Yes, agreed. We want predictable behaviour of "not ASSERTing" for untrusted input, because we *know* it is untrusted and the function *can* (and should be able to) handle it - it is simply not a precondition. > > I can see a Si vendor developing with ASSERT Constraint off and then > when the customer turns it on stuff starts randomly breaking. A lot of Si and core (DxeCore, PeiCore, related libraries) code seems to ASSERT (frequently *only* ASSERT with no actual handling, especially for AllocatePool() == NULL) when there are valid error situations possible, so I hope this approach would be a handy tool to satisfy their needs without this absolutely terrible practice. :) I think I understood all your comment individually, but I'm afraid I'm not sure what your suggested solution is right now. You commented semi-positively on my proposal, you did not revoke your C11 path, and you furthermore introduced CHECK_* - this is brainstorming, and I think it's a great thing, but I'm simply not sure what your exact goal or prefered route is right now. My proposal is a bit unconventional and I agree it sounds hacky, but so far I'm not convinced it would be bad practice at all. It boils down to sensefully using the information a function returns. This requires nothing but the function to return sensical information, which every function should anyway. Your proposal is close to the C standard, and that is a good thing first of all. However, with the rest of edk2 not being very compliant, I don't think it's an instant win as in "we just comply to standards" because this choice does not suddenly make porting existing code significantly easier compared to the total lack of standard library support for anything but Shell apps. Pragmatically, I think it solves the same problem equally well, but at a higher cost (ensuring the implementation is safe and, strictly speaking, an ever-so-slight runtime overhead). > >> However, CONSTRAINT_ASSERT might actually be too specific. Maybe we want >> something like "ASSERT_RETURN" and have the classes "ASSERT_CONSTRAINT" >> and "ASSERT_ENVIRONMENT" (bitfield, like with DEBUG). The reason for >> this is embedded systems where the environment is trusted/known and the >> firmware is supposed to be well-matched. Think of a SoC with soldered >> RAM - the firmware can very well make assumption about memory capacity >> (considering usage across all modules in the worst case) and might >> actually want ASSERTs on something like "Out Of Resources" because it's >> supposed to be impossible within the bounds of this specific design. >> It's possible this would need a new PCD's involvement, for example to >> tell DxeCore whether to ASSERT on environmental aspects too. There could >> be an argument-less macro that uses PCD config as base, and an >> argument-based macro that uses only the parameters. Of course this >> cannot cover everyone's very specific preferences as it's a per-module >> switch, but it's the best I can think of right now. >> >> Something a bit unrelated now, but it would make this easier. You >> mentioned PeCoffLib as example, and I think it's a good one, however it >> has its own return status type within the context[1] which I will most >> definitely be getting rid of as part of my upcoming (in the far-ish >> future :) ) RFC. Could we expand RETURN_STATUS to have (very high?) >> reserved values for caller-defined error codes to have all RETURN_STATUS >> macros apply to those special return values too? We'd need to define >> them categorically as "constraint status", but I don't see how a library >> would declare a new environment status anyway. >> >> Regarding MdePkgCompatability.dsc.inc, I think one can override library >> classes from the inc by declaring them after the !include statement, >> please correct me if I'm wrong. If so, I strongly agree and think it >> should be the case for all packages, so one only overrides the defaults >> when something specific (debugging, performance-optimized versions, ...) >> is required - easier to read, easier to maintain. The content is >> needed/there anyway as the libraries are declared in the package's own >> DSC. >> > > Yes it the new .inc DSC file could be overridden by the platform DSC > that includes it. > > I think this is a more general idea than something for this given patch. > It is something we could make sure we update every stable tag or so, but > I guess someone has to go 1st :). It would make it easier on platforms > when they update the edk2 version. Agreed. > > > > >> It would be nice if you had comments regarding every aspect I just >> mentioned, it was just something coming to my mind this morning. Thanks >> for the input so far, it's nice to see some movement now! >> > > Sorry for the delay Sure, thanks for taking time to respond! > > Thanks, > > Andrew Fish > >> Best regards, >> Marvin >> >> [1] >> https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/f1d78c489a39971b5aac5d2fc8a39bfa925c3c5d/MdePkg/Include/Library/PeCoffLib.h#L20-L31 >> https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/f1d78c489a39971b5aac5d2fc8a39bfa925c3c5d/MdePkg/Include/Library/PeCoffLib.h#L159 >> >> Am 16.02.2020 um 22:25 schrieb Andrew Fish via Groups.Io: >>> Mike, >>> >>> Sorry I don't think I totally understood what felt wrong to me, so I did >>> a bad job explaining my concerns. Also I don't think I was thinking >>> enough in the context of the C11 StdLib. >>> >>> I think my concern is still the global scope of the constraint, even if >>> we tune it per module. For example the DXE Core can interact with >>> PE/COFF images and other data that could have indirectly come from the >>> disk. So conceptually you may want to ASSERT on some constraints and not >>> on others. I think that is why I ratholed on expanding the error >>> handling macros as that was more in the vein of having the caller deal >>> with it, so that is kind of like what you would do pre C11. Also the >>> DebugLib is probably one of the MdePkg Libs that has the most instances >>> floating around, so I think we should change it in a non backwards way >>> very carefully. >>> >>> So after reading up on the C11 implementation of Constraints I think my >>> alternate proposal is for us to add a ConstraintLib modeled after C11 >>> vs. updating the DebugLib. This would solve the 2 things that made me >>> uncomfortable: 1) Extending the DebugLib API; 2) Giving the caller >>> control of the ASSERT behavior. It would still have the down side of >>> breaking builds as the BaseLib would get a new dependency, so we could >>> talk about adding these functions to the DebugLib as the cost of >>> replicating code. >>> >>> C11 defines constraint_handler_t and set_constraint_handler_s as a way >>> for the caller to configure the behavior for bounds checked functions. I >>> think that is the behavior I prefer. So if we are going to make a change >>> that impacts DebugLib compatibility I just want to make sure we have a >>> conversation about all the options. My primary goal is we have the >>> conversation, and if folks don't agree with me that is fine at least we >>> talked about it. >>> >>> What I'm thinking about is as simply exposing an API to control the >>> Constraint handler like C11. This could be done via an ConstrainLib or >>> extending the DebugLib. >>> >>> The basic implementation of the lib would look like: >>> >>> typedef >>> VOID >>> (EFIAPI *CONSTRAINT_HANDLER) ( >>> IN CONST CHAR8 *FileName, >>> IN UINTN LineNumber, >>> IN CONST CHAR8 *Description, >>> IN EFI_STATUS Status >>> ); >>> >>> >>> // Default to AssertConstraintHandler to make it easier to implement >>> Base and XIP libs. >>> // We could have a PCD that also sets the default handler in a Lib >>> Constructor. The default handler is implementation defined in C11. >>> CONSTRAINT_HANDLER gDefaultConstraintHandler = AssertConstraintHandler; >>> CONSTRAINT_HANDLER gActiveConstraintHandler = gDefaultConstraintHandler; >>> >>> BOOLEAN >>> EFIAPI >>> ConstraintAssertEnabled ( >>> VOID >>> ) >>> { >>> return (BOOLEAN) ((PcdGet8(PcdDebugPropertyMask) & >>> DEBUG_PROPERTY_DEBUG_CONSTRAINT_ENABLED) != 0); >>> } >>> >>> EFI_STATUS >>> EFIAPI >>> SetConstraintHandler ( >>> IN CONSTRAINT_HANDLER Handler >>> ) >>> { >>> if (Handler == NULL) { >>> gActiveConstraintHandler = gDefaultConstraintHandler; >>> } else { >>> gActiveConstraintHandler = Handler; >>> } >>> } >>> >>> VOID >>> AssertConstraintHandler ( >>> IN CONST CHAR8 *FileName, >>> IN UINTN LineNumber, >>> IN CONST CHAR8 *Description, >>> IN EFI_STATUS Status >>> ) >>> { >>> if (ConstraintAssertEnabled ()) { >>> DEBUG ((EFI_D_ERROR, "\Constraint ASSERT (Status = %r): ", Status)); >>> DebugAssert (FileName, LineNumber, Description) >>> } >>> >>> return; >>> } >>> >>> VOID >>> IgnoreConstraintHandler ( >>> IN CONST CHAR8 *FileName, >>> IN UINTN LineNumber, >>> IN CONST CHAR8 *Description, >>> IN EFI_STATUS Status >>> ) >>> { >>> return; >>> } >>> >>> We could add macros for the code in the lib to call: >>> >>> #define CONSTRAINT_CHECK(Expression, Status) \ >>> do { \ >>> if (!(Expression)) { \ >>> gActiveConstraintHandler (__FILE__, __LINE__, Expression, Status); \ >>> return Status; \ >>> } \ >>> } while (FALSE) >>> >>> #define CONSTRAINT_REQUIRE(Expression, Status, Label) \ >>> do { \ >>> if (!(Expression)) { \ >>> gActiveConstraintHandler (__FILE__, __LINE__, Expression, Status); \ >>> goto Label; \ >>> } \ >>> } while (FALSE) >>> >>> >>> As a caller we have now have control: >>> EFI_STATUS Status; >>> CHAR16 Dst[2]; >>> >>> SetConstraintHandler (IgnoreConstraintHandler); >>> Status = StrCpyS (Dst, sizeof (Dst), L"Too Long"); >>> Print (L"Dst =%s (%r)\n", Dst, Status); >>> >>> SetConstraintHandler (AssertConstraintHandler); >>> StrCpyS (Dst, sizeof (Dst), L"Too Long"); >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Andrew Fish >>> >>> PS Since I'm on a crazy idea roll another idea would be to add a >>> MdePkgCompatability.dsc.inc file that could be used to future proof >>> adding dependent libs to existing MdePkg libs. So a platform could >>> include this .DSC and that would give them the default library mapping >>> to keep code compiling. It will only work after other platforms start >>> including it, but after that it would give default mappings for >>> dependent libs. >>> >>> In our above example we could have added this and then existing builds >>> that included MdePkgCompatability.dsc.inc would keep compiling. >>> >>> [LibraryClasses] >>> >>> DebugConstraintLib|MdePkg/Library/DebugConstraintLib/DebugConstraintLib.inf >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Feb 15, 2020, at 11:38 AM, Michael D Kinney >>>> <michael.d.kin...@intel.com >>>> <mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com><mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Andrew, >>>> I do not think of this as a globally scoped PCD.It can be set in >>>> global scope in DSC.But is can also be set to values based on module >>>> type or for specific modules.In the case of the safe string functions, >>>> I think there is a desire to disable the constraint asserts when >>>> building a UEFI App or UEFI Driver and implement those modules to >>>> handle the error return values.Enabling the constraint asserts for PEI >>>> Core, DXE Core, SMM/MM Core, PEIM, DXE, SMM/MM modules makes sense to >>>> find incorrect input to these functions from modules that can >>>> guarantee the inputs would never return an error and catch these as >>>> part of dev/debug/validation builds. >>>> I would not expect disabling on a module by module basis to be common. >>>> I think the rule for API implementations is to only use >>>> CONSTRAINT_ASSERT() for conditions that are also checked and return an >>>> error or fail with predicable behavior that allows the system to >>>> continue to function.ASSERT() is for conditions that the systemcan >>>> notcontinue. >>>> Best regards, >>>> Mike >>>> *From:*af...@apple.com >>>> <mailto:af...@apple.com><mailto:af...@apple.com><af...@apple.com >>>> <mailto:af...@apple.com> >>>> <mailto:af...@apple.com>> >>>> *Sent:*Friday, February 14, 2020 10:27 PM >>>> *To:*vit9696 <vit9...@protonmail.com >>>> <mailto:vit9...@protonmail.com><mailto:vit9...@protonmail.com>> >>>> *Cc:*devel@edk2.groups.io >>>> <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io><mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; Kinney, >>>> Michael D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com >>>> <mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com> >>>> <mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>; Gao, Liming >>>> <liming....@intel.com >>>> <mailto:liming....@intel.com><mailto:liming....@intel.com>>; Gao, >>>> Zhichao >>>> <zhichao....@intel.com >>>> <mailto:zhichao....@intel.com><mailto:zhichao....@intel.com>>; >>>> Marvin Häuser >>>> <marvin.haeu...@outlook.com >>>> <mailto:marvin.haeu...@outlook.com><mailto:marvin.haeu...@outlook.com>>; >>>> Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com >>>> <mailto:ler...@redhat.com><mailto:ler...@redhat.com>> >>>> *Subject:*Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v3 0/1] Add PCD to disable safe >>>> string constraint assertions >>>> Vitaly, >>>> Sorry after I sent the mail I realized it may come across as me >>>> asking you to do work and that was not my intent. >>>> I will point out though that a non backward compatible change to >>>> something as fundamental as the DebugLib is a very big deal. I've got >>>> a few different custom implementations that would break with this >>>> change as Mike proposed. Given breaking every one's debug lib is such >>>> a big deal maybe it is something that we should do as a long term plan >>>> vs. some incremental fix. So my intent was to start a conversation >>>> about what else we might want to change if we are going to break the >>>> world. The only think worse than breaking the world is breaking the >>>> world frequently. >>>> I'm also a little worried that we are taking things that are today >>>> locally scoped like SAFE_STRING_CONSTRAINT_CHECK and >>>> SAFE_PRINT_CONSTRAINT_CHECK and making them global constructs. I think >>>> the way others have dealt with things like this is to make them be >>>> DEBUG prints vs. ASSERTs. Also even something as simple as >>>> SAFE_STRING_CONSTRAINT_CHECK could be called from code that wants >>>> ASSERT and CONSTRAINT_ASSERT behavior. It is not clear to me that the >>>> low level code knows the right thing to do in a global sense even if >>>> there is a PCD. It almost seems like we should have wrappers for the >>>> Safe string functions that implement the behavior you want as a >>>> caller. I'm not sure about that, but it seems like it is worth talking >>>> about? >>>> Thanks, >>>> Andrew Fish >>>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 14, 2020, at 7:31 PM, vit9696 <vit9...@protonmail.com >>>> <mailto:vit9...@protonmail.com> >>>> <mailto:vit9...@protonmail.com>> wrote: >>>> Hi Andrew, >>>> While your suggestions look interesting, I am afraid they are not >>>> particularly what we want to cover with this discussion at the >>>> moment. >>>> Making assertions go through DEBUG printing functions/macros is >>>> what we have to strongly disagree about. Assertions and debug >>>> prints are separate things configurable by separate PCDs. We >>>> should not mix them. Introducing constraint assertions is a >>>> logical step forward in understanding that different software >>>> works in different environments. >>>> >>>> * There are normal, or, as I call them, invariant >>>> assertions (e.g. preconditions), for places where the function >>>> cannot work unless the assertion is satisfied. This is where >>>> we ASSERT. >>>> * There are constraint assertions, which signalise that bad data >>>> came through the function, even though the function was called >>>> from a trusted source. This is where we call CONSTRAINT_ASSERT. >>>> >>>> The thing we need is to have the latter separable >>>> and configurable, because not every piece of software works in a >>>> trusted environment. Other than that, constraint assertions, when >>>> enabled, are not anyhow different from normal assertions in the >>>> sense of action taken. Assertions have configurable breakpoints >>>> and deadloops, and DEBUG prints go through a different route in >>>> DebugLib that may cause entirely different effects. For example, >>>> we halt execution upon printing to DEBUG_ERROR in our DebugLib >>>> even in release builds. >>>> >>>> =To make it clear, currently I plan to add the following interface: >>>> #define CONSTRAINT_ASSERT(Expression) \ >>>> do { \ >>>> if (DebugConstraintAssertEnabled ()) { \ >>>> if (!(Expression)) { \ >>>> _ASSERT (Expression); \ >>>> ANALYZER_UNREACHABLE (); \ >>>> } \ >>>> } \ >>>> } while (FALSE) >>>> with DebugConstraintAssertEnabled implemented as >>>> (BOOLEAN) ((PcdGet8(PcdDebugPropertyMask) & >>>> DEBUG_PROPERTY_DEBUG_ASSERT_ENABLED | >>>> DEBUG_PROPERTY_CONTRAINT_ASSERT_DISABLED) == >>>> DEBUG_PROPERTY_DEBUG_ASSERT_ENABLED) >>>> Your suggestion with require macros looks interesting indeed, but >>>> I believe it is in fact parallel to this discussion. The change we >>>> discuss introduces a new assertion primitive — constraint >>>> assertions, while REQUIRE macros are mostly about advanced syntax >>>> sugar and higher level assertion primitives on top of existing >>>> ones. Perhaps we can have this and make a good use of it, >>>> especially given that it brought some practical benefit in Apple, >>>> but I would rather discuss this later once constraint assertions >>>> are merged into EDK II tree. >>>> Best wishes, >>>> Vitaly >>>> On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 03:02, Andrew Fish <af...@apple.com >>>> <mailto:af...@apple.com> >>>> <mailto:af...@apple.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 14, 2020, at 2:50 PM, Michael D Kinney >>>> <michael.d.kin...@intel.com >>>> <mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com> >>>> <mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>> wrote: >>>> Hi Vitaly, >>>> I agree that this proposal makes a lot of sense. We >>>> recently added a new assert type called STATIC_ASSERT() >>>> for assert conditions that can be tested at build time. >>>> A new assert type for checks that can be removed and the >>>> API still guarantees that it fails gracefully with a >>>> proper return code is a good idea. Given we have >>>> STATIC_ASSERT(), how about naming the new macro >>>> CONSTRAINT_ASSERT()? >>>> We also want the default to be enabled. The current use of >>>> bit 0x40 inPcdDebugPropertyMask is always clear, so we >>>> want the asserts enabled when 0x40 is clear. We can change >>>> the name of the define bit to >>>> DEBUG_PROPERTY_CONTRAINT_ASSERT_DISABLED so bit 0x40 needs >>>> to be set inPcdDebugPropertyMaskto disable these types of >>>> asserts. >>>> This approach does require all theDebugLibimplementations >>>> to be updated with the newDebugConstraintAssertDisabled() >>>> API. >>>> >>>> Mike, >>>> If you wanted to be backward compatible you could just >>>> use DebugAssertEnabled () but in place of _ASSERT() use >>>> _CONSTRAINT_ASSERT >>>> #define _ASSERT(Expression) DebugAssert (__FILE__, __LINE__, >>>> #Expression) >>>> #define _CONSTRAINT_ASSERT(Expression) DebugPrint >>>> (DEBUG_ERROR, "ASSERT %a(%d): %a\n",, __FILE__, __LINE__, >>>> #Expression) >>>> Not as elegant as the non backward compatible change, but I >>>> thought I'd throw it out there. >>>> There are some ancient Apple C ASSERT macros [AssertMacros.h] >>>> that also have the concept of require. Require includes an >>>> exception label (goto label). It is like a CONSTRAINT_ASSERT() >>>> but with the label. On release builds the DEBUG prints are >>>> skipped. >>>> So we could do something like: >>>> EFI_STATUS Status = EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER; >>>> REQUIRE(Arg1 != NULL, ErrorExit); >>>> REQUIRE(Arg2 != NULL, ErrorExit); >>>> REQUIRE(Arg3 != NULL, ErrorExit); >>>> ErrorExit: >>>> return Status; >>>> There is another form that allows an ACTION (a statement to >>>> execute. So you could have: >>>> EFI_STATUS Status; >>>> REQUIRE_ACTION(Arg1 != NULL, ErrorExit, Status = >>>> EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER); >>>> REQUIRE_ACTION(Arg2 != NULL, ErrorExit, Status = >>>> EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER); >>>> REQUIRE_ACTION(Arg3 != NULL, ErrorExit, Status = >>>> EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER); >>>> ErrorExit: >>>> return Status; >>>> If you use CONSTRAINT_ASSERT(); >>>> if (Arg1 == NULL || Arg2 == NULL || Arg3 == NULL) { >>>> CONSTRAINT_ASSERT (Arg1 != NULL); >>>> CONSTRAINT_ASSERT (Arg2 != NULL); >>>> CONSTRAINT_ASSERT (Arg3 != NULL); >>>> return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER; >>>> } >>>> I'd note error processing args on entry is the simplest case. >>>> In a more complex case when cleanup is required the goto >>>> label is more useful. >>>> I guess we could argue for less typing and more symmetry and >>>> say use ASSERT, CONSTRAINT, and REQUIRE. I guess you could add >>>> an ASSERT_ACTION too. >>>> The AssertMacros.h versions also support _quiet (skip the >>>> print) and _string (add a string to the print) so you end up >>>> with: >>>> REQUIRE >>>> REQUIRE_STRING >>>> REQUIRE_QUIET >>>> REQUIRE_ACTION >>>> REQUIRE_ACTION_STRING >>>> REQUIRE_ACTION_QUIET >>>> We could also end up with >>>> CONSTRAINT >>>> CONSTRAINT_STRING >>>> CONSTRAINT_QUIET >>>> I think the main idea behind _QUIET is you can silence things >>>> that are too noisy, and you can easily make noise things show >>>> up by removing the _QUIET to debug. >>>> I'd thought I throw out the other forms for folks to think >>>> about. I'm probably biased as I used to looking at code and >>>> seeing things like require_action_string(Arg1 != NULL, >>>> ErrorExit, Status = EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER, "1st Arg1 check"); >>>> Thanks, >>>> Andrew Fish >>>> PS The old debug macros had 2 versions of CONSTRAINT check and >>>> verify. The check version was compiled out on a release build, >>>> the verify version always does the check and just skips the >>>> DEBUG print. >>>> >>>> Mike >>>> *From:*vit9696 <vit9...@protonmail.com >>>> <mailto:vit9...@protonmail.com> >>>> <mailto:vit9...@protonmail.com>> >>>> *Sent:*Friday, February 14, 2020 9:38 AM >>>> *To:*Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com >>>> <mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com> >>>> <mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>> >>>> *Cc:*devel@edk2.groups.io >>>> <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io><mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; >>>> Gao, Liming <liming....@intel.com >>>> <mailto:liming....@intel.com> >>>> <mailto:liming....@intel.com>>; Gao, Zhichao >>>> <zhichao....@intel.com >>>> <mailto:zhichao....@intel.com><mailto:zhichao....@intel.com>>; >>>> Marvin Häuser <marvin.haeu...@outlook.com >>>> <mailto:marvin.haeu...@outlook.com> >>>> <mailto:marvin.haeu...@outlook.com>>; Laszlo Ersek >>>> <ler...@redhat.com >>>> <mailto:ler...@redhat.com><mailto:ler...@redhat.com>> >>>> *Subject:*Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v3 0/1] Add PCD to >>>> disable safe string constraint assertions >>>> Michael, >>>> Generalising the approach makes good sense to me, but we >>>> need to make an obvious distinguishable difference between: >>>> - precondition and invariant assertions (i.e. assertions, >>>> where function will NOT work if they are violated) >>>> - constraint asserts (i.e. assertions, which allow us to >>>> spot unintentional behaviour when parsing untrusted data, >>>> but which do not break function behaviour). >>>> As we want to use this outside of SafeString, I suggest >>>> the following: >>>> - Introduce DEBUG_PROPERTY_ASSERT_CONSTRAINT_ENABLED 0x40 >>>> bit for PcdDebugPropertyMask instead >>>> of PcdAssertOnSafeStringConstraints. >>>> - Introduce DebugAssertConstraintEnabled DebugLib function >>>> to check for DEBUG_PROPERTY_ASSERT_CONSTRAINT_ENABLED. >>>> - Introduce ASSERT_CONSTRAINT macro, that will assert only >>>> if DebugConstraintAssertEnabled returns true. >>>> - Change SafeString ASSERTS >>>> in SAFE_STRING_CONSTRAINT_CHECK to ASSERT_CONSTRAINTs. >>>> - Use ASSERT_CONSTRAINT in other places where necessary. >>>> >>>> I believe this way lines best with EDK II design. If there >>>> are no objections, I can submit the patch in the beginning >>>> of next week. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> Vitaly >>>> >>>> 14 февр. 2020 г., в 20:00, Kinney, Michael D >>>> <michael.d.kin...@intel.com >>>> <mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com> >>>> <mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>> написал(а): >>>> Vitaly, >>>> I want to make sure a feature PCD can be used to >>>> disable ASSERT() behavior in more than just safe >>>> string functions inBaseLib. >>>> Can we consider changing the name and description >>>> ofPcdAssertOnSafeStringConstraintsto be more generic, >>>> so if we find other lib APIs, the name will make sense? >>>> Maybe something like:PcdEnableLibraryAssertChecks? >>>> Default is TRUE. Can set to FALSE in DSC file to >>>> disable ASSERT() checks. >>>> Thanks, >>>> Mike >>>> *From:*devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> >>>> <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io><devel@edk2.groups.io >>>> <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> >>>> <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>>*On Behalf Of*Vitaly >>>> Cheptsov via Groups.Io >>>> *Sent:*Friday, February 14, 2020 3:55 AM >>>> *To:*Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com >>>> <mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com> >>>> <mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>; Gao, Liming >>>> <liming....@intel.com >>>> <mailto:liming....@intel.com><mailto:liming....@intel.com>>; >>>> Gao, Zhichao <zhichao....@intel.com >>>> <mailto:zhichao....@intel.com> >>>> <mailto:zhichao....@intel.com>>;devel@edk2.groups.io >>>> <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> >>>> <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> >>>> *Cc:*Marvin Häuser <marvin.haeu...@outlook.com >>>> <mailto:marvin.haeu...@outlook.com> >>>> <mailto:marvin.haeu...@outlook.com>>; Laszlo Ersek >>>> <ler...@redhat.com >>>> <mailto:ler...@redhat.com><mailto:ler...@redhat.com>> >>>> *Subject:*Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v3 0/1] Add PCD to >>>> disable safe string constraint assertions >>>> Replying as per Liming's request for this to be merged >>>> into edk2-stable202002. >>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 14:12, vit9696 >>>> <vit9...@protonmail.com <mailto:vit9...@protonmail.com> >>>> <mailto:vit9...@protonmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> It has been quite some time since we submitted the >>>> patch with so far no negative response. As I >>>> mentioned previously, my team will strongly >>>> benefit from its landing in EDK II mainline. Since >>>> it does not add any regressions and can be viewed >>>> as a feature implementation for the rest of EDK II >>>> users, I request this to be merged upstream in >>>> edk2-stable202002. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> Vitaly >>>> >>>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 12:47, vit9696 >>>> <vit9...@protonmail.com >>>> <mailto:vit9...@protonmail.com> >>>> <mailto:vit9...@protonmail.com>> написал(а): >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Mike, >>>>> >>>>> Any progress with this? We would really benefit >>>> from this landing in the next stable release. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Vitaly >>>>> >>>>>> 8 янв. 2020 г., в 19:35, Kinney, Michael D >>>> <michael.d.kin...@intel.com >>>> <mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com> >>>> <mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>> написал(а): >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Vitaly, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the additional background. I would like >>>>>> a couple extra day to review the PCD name and >>>> the places >>>>>> the PCD might potentially be used. >>>>>> >>>>>> If we find other APIs where ASSERT() behavior >>>> is only >>>>>> valuable during dev/debug to quickly identify >>>> misuse >>>>>> with trusted data and the API provides predicable >>>>>> return behavior when ASSERT() is disabled, then >>>> I would >>>>>> like to have a pattern we can potentially apply >>>> to all >>>>>> these APIs across all packages. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From:devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> >>>> <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io><devel@edk2.groups.io >>>> <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> >>>> <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>> On >>>>>>> Behalf Of Vitaly Cheptsov via Groups.Io >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 6, 2020 10:44 AM >>>>>>> To: Kinney, Michael D >>>> <michael.d.kin...@intel.com >>>> <mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com> >>>> <mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>> >>>>>>> Cc:devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> >>>> <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v3 0/1] Add >>>> PCD to >>>>>>> disable safe string constraint assertions >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Mike, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, the primary use case is for UEFI >>>> Applications. We >>>>>>> do not want to disable ASSERT’s completely, as >>>>>>> assertions that make sense, i.e. the ones >>>> signalising >>>>>>> about interface misuse, are helpful for debugging. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have already explained in the BZ that >>>> basically all >>>>>>> safe string constraint assertions make no >>>> sense for >>>>>>> handling untrusted data. We find this use case >>>> very >>>>>>> logical, as these functions behave properly with >>>>>>> assertions disabled and cover all these error >>>>>>> conditions by the return statuses. In such >>>> situation is >>>>>>> not useful for these functions to assert, as >>>> we end up >>>>>>> inefficiently reimplementing the logic. I >>>> would have >>>>>>> liked the approach of discussing the interfaces >>>>>>> individually, but I struggle to find any that >>>> makes >>>>>>> sense from this point of view. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> AsciiStrToGuid will ASSERT when the length of the >>>>>>> passed string is odd. Functions that cannot, ahem, >>>>>>> parse, for us are pretty much useless. >>>>>>> AsciiStrCatS will ASSERT when the appended >>>> string does >>>>>>> not fit the buffer. For us this logic makes this >>>>>>> function pretty much equivalent to deprecated >>>> and thus >>>>>>> unavailable AsciiStrCat, except it is also slower. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My original suggestion was to remove the >>>> assertions >>>>>>> entirely, but several people here said that >>>> they use >>>>>>> them to verify usage errors when handling >>>> trusted data. >>>>>>> This makes good sense to me, so we suggest to >>>> support >>>>>>> both cases by introducing a PCD in this patch. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>>> Vitaly >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 6 янв. 2020 г., в 21:28, Kinney, Michael D >>>>>>> <michael.d.kin...@intel.com <mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com> >>>> <mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>> написал(а): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Vitaly, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is the use case for UEFI Applications? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is a different mechanism to disable all >>>>>>> ASSERT() >>>>>>>> statements within a UEFI Application. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If a component is consuming data from an >>>> untrusted >>>>>>> source, >>>>>>>> then that component is required to verify the >>>>>>> untrusted >>>>>>>> data before passing it to a function that clearly >>>>>>> documents >>>>>>>> is input requirements. If this approach is >>>> followed, >>>>>>> then >>>>>>>> the BaseLib functions can be used "as is" as >>>> long as >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> ASSERT() conditions are verified before calling. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If there are some APIs that currently >>>> document their >>>>>>> ASSERT() >>>>>>>> behavior and we think that ASSERT() behavior is >>>>>>> incorrect and >>>>>>>> should be handled by an existing error return >>>> value, >>>>>>> then we >>>>>>>> should discuss each of those APIs individually. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mike >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From:devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> >>>> <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io><devel@edk2.groups.io >>>> <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> >>>> <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>> On >>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Vitaly Cheptsov via Groups.Io >>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 9:13 AM >>>>>>>>> To:devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> >>>> <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> >>>>>>>>> Subject: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v3 0/1] Add PCD to >>>>>>> disable >>>>>>>>> safe string constraint assertions >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> REF: >>>>>>>>> https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2054 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Requesting for merge in edk2-stable202002. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Changes since V1: >>>>>>>>> - Enable assertions by default to preserve the >>>>>>> original >>>>>>>>> behaviour >>>>>>>>> - Fix bugzilla reference link >>>>>>>>> - Update documentation in BaseLib.h >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Vitaly Cheptsov (1): >>>>>>>>> MdePkg: Add PCD to disable safe string >>>> constraint >>>>>>>>> assertions >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MdePkg/MdePkg.dec | 6 ++ >>>>>>>>> MdePkg/Library/BaseLib/BaseLib.inf | 11 +-- >>>>>>>>> MdePkg/Include/Library/BaseLib.h | 74 >>>>>>>>> +++++++++++++------- >>>>>>>>> MdePkg/Library/BaseLib/SafeString.c | 4 +- >>>>>>>>> MdePkg/MdePkg.uni | 6 ++ >>>>>>>>> 5 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 30 >>>> deletions(-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> 2.21.0 (Apple Git-122.2) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -=-=-=-=-=-= >>>>>>>>> Groups.io <http://groups.io/><http://groups.io/>Links: You >>>> receive all messages sent to >>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> group. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> View/Reply Online (#52837): >>>>>>>>> https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/52837 >>>>>>>>> Mute This Topic: >>>>>>> https://groups.io/mt/69401948/1643496 >>>>>>>>> Group Owner:devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io >>>>>>>>> <mailto:devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io> >>>> <mailto:devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io> >>>>>>>>> Unsubscribe:https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub >>>>>>>>> [michael.d.kin...@intel.com <mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com> >>>> <mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>] >>>>>>>>> -=-=-=-=-=-= >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#54675): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/54675 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/69401948/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
