On 14 May 2015 at 14:58, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05/13/2015 02:51 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> If a symbol that has so far been valid abruptly ends then we will want
>> to fail the process rather than silently succeed.
>>
>> ---
>> libiberty/ChangeLog
>>
>> 2015-05-13 Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@gdcproject.org>
>>
>> * d-demangle.c (dlang_call_convention): Return NULL if have reached
>> the
>> end of the symbol, but expected more.
>> (dlang_attributes): Likewise.
>> (dlang_function_type): Likewise.
>> (dlang_type): Likewise.
>> (dlang_identifier): Likewise.
>> (dlang_value): Likewise.
>
> I spot checked various callers of these functions that not return NULL and
> they looked reasonable. Though I was a bit concerned about the callers of
> dlang_type, dlang_value and dlang_identifier.
>
> In those cases we'll often still do the string_append, string_setlength and
> other calls in the caller of dlang_{value,type,identifier}. I'm assuming
> that's safe (the error still appears to be bubbling up properly).
>
The string routines should be safe for that (appending a string with a
zero length does nothing, for instance).
> If you can confirm that we're OK in those cases, then this is OK for the
> trunk.
>
I can start fuzzing mangle strings to test that failures actually fail
gracefully. There's already a fuzzer that exists for C++, I think the
only change that would be required for D is exchanging "_Z" for "_D"
and calling cplus_demangle with DMGL_DLANG.
Regards
Iain
