Hi Chris, David and Thomas,

I took a closer look now, too. Funny that the original change was contributed 
by my colleagues because of coverity and that they didn't do it completely 
right. 😉 As a code comment in our attachListener.hpp suggests, the '0' 
termination to please coverity was added far earlier than JDK-8140482 was done.

So, yes, in fact the input to the "set_name" and "set_arg" methods should never 
exceed the maximum length values as per the current code in the OpenJDK. These 
methods are called from the various platform specific attachListener_<os>.cpp 
files. And in each of these places the length is already checked and violations 
get handled. So with the assertion we merely guard against new code that 
doesn't do checking which can potentially come in.

So one can argue that the assertions are enough here and we can just do strcpy. 
In that case I would even support Thomas' suggestion to change the assertion 
into a guarantee as the input coming in from new code is not necessarily static 
but can be user input (who knows). And we should also turn the knob here to 
quiesce coverity since it is obviously not considering the possible call paths 
and the checks in them.

But on the other hand, one could be as conservative as it is now - I guess it 
doesn't bear too much of cost and this place of code is not performance 
critical. That means do the assertion in dbg builds and for opt effectively do 
a checked, truncating copy of the input data but avoiding JVM crashes or other 
errors due to unterminated strings.

I personally tend to do the second - but fine if I get overruled.

But, if we do the second, I'm still for memcpy as strncpy would do zero padding 
of the buffer which is not necessary and we have to write a terminating 0 as 
well to handle the case that inputlength > name_len_max (the case which should 
not happen but we want to protect against). That would mean my change stays as 
it is.

What shall I do now?

Best regards

Reply via email to