xrealloc() is obviously incorrect, modern GCC docs even
mention realloc() as an example where this attribute
cannot be used.
liblzma's lzma_alloc() and lzma_alloc_zero() would be
correct uses most of the time but custom allocators
may use a memory pool or otherwise hold the pointer
so aliasing issues could happen in theory.
The xstrdup() case likely was correct but I removed it anyway.
Now there are no __malloc__ attributes left in the code.
The allocations aren't in hot paths so this should make
no practical difference.
The argument to vli_ceil4() should always guarantee the return value
is also a valid lzma_vli. Thus the highest three valid lzma_vli values
are invalid arguments. All uses of the function ensure this so the
assert is updated to match this.
This was not a security bug since there was no path to overflow
UINT64_MAX in lzma_index_append() or when it calls index_file_size().
The bug was discovered by a failing assert() in vli_ceil4() when called
from index_file_size() when unpadded_sum (the sum of the compressed size
of current Stream and the unpadded_size parameter) exceeds LZMA_VLI_MAX.
Previously, the unpadded_size parameter was checked to be not greater
than UNPADDED_SIZE_MAX, but no check was done once compressed_base was
added.
This could not have caused an integer overflow in index_file_size() when
called by lzma_index_append(). The calculation for file_size breaks down
into the sum of:
- Compressed base from all previous Streams
- 2 * LZMA_STREAM_HEADER_SIZE (size of the current Streams header and
footer)
- stream_padding (can be set by lzma_index_stream_padding())
- Compressed base from the current Stream
- Unpadded size (parameter to lzma_index_append())
The sum of everything except for Unpadded size must be less than
LZMA_VLI_MAX. This is guarenteed by overflow checks in the functions
that can set these values including lzma_index_stream_padding(),
lzma_index_append(), and lzma_index_cat(). The maximum value for
Unpadded size is enforced by lzma_index_append() to be less than or
equal UNPADDED_SIZE_MAX. Thus, the sum cannot exceed UINT64_MAX since
LZMA_VLI_MAX is half of UINT64_MAX.
Thanks to Joona Kannisto for reporting this.
To workaround Automake lacking Windows resource compiler support, an
empty source file is compiled to overwrite the resource files for static
library builds. Translation units without an external declaration are
not allowed by the C standard and result in a warning when used with
-Wempty-translation-unit (Clang) or -pedantic (GCC).
Reword "options required" to "options read". The previous wording
may have suggested that the options listed were all required when
the filters are used for encoding or decoding. Now it should be
more clear that the options listed are the ones relevant for
encoding or decoding.
In lzma_memcmplen(), the <intrin.h> header file is only included if
_MSC_VER and _M_X64 are both defined but _BitScanForward64() was
previously used if _M_X64 was defined. GCC for MSYS2 defines _M_X64 but
not _MSC_VER so _BitScanForward64() was used without including
<intrin.h>.
Now, lzma_memcmplen() will use __builtin_ctzll() for MSYS2 GCC builds as
expected.
This change only impacts the compiler warning since it was impossible
for the wait_abs struct in stream_encode_mt() to be used before it was
initialized since mythread_condtime_set() will always be called before
mythread_cond_timedwait().
Since the mythread.h code is different between the POSIX and
Windows versions, this warning was only present on Windows builds.
Thanks to Arthur S for reporting the warning and providing an initial
patch.
Legacy Windows did not need to #include <intrin.h> to use the MSVC
intrinsics. Newer versions likely just issue a warning, but the MSVC
documentation says to include the header file for the intrinsics we use.
GCC and Clang can "pretend" to be MSVC on Windows, so extra checks are
needed in tuklib_integer.h to only include <intrin.h> when it will is
actually needed.
The \mainpage command is used in the first block of comments in lzma.h.
This changes the previously nearly empty index.html to use the first
comment block in lzma.h for its contents.
lzma.h is no longer documented separately, but this is for the better
since lzma.h only defined a few macros that users do not need to use.
The individual API header files all have a disclaimer that they should
not be #included directly, so there should be no confusion on the fact
that lzma.h should be the only header used by applications.
Additionally, the note "See ../lzma.h for information about liblzma as
a whole." was removed since lzma.h is now the main page of the
generated HTML and does not have its own page anymore. So it would be
confusing in the HTML version and was only a "nice to have" when
browsing the source files.
lzma_lzma_preset() does not guarentee that the lzma_options_lzma are
usable in an encoder even if it returns false (success). If liblzma
is built with default configurations, then the options will always be
usable. However if the match finders hc3, hc4, or bt4 are disabled, then
the options may not be usable depending on the preset level requested.
The documentation was updated to reflect this complexity, since this
behavior was unclear before.
All functions now explicitly specify parameter and return values.
The notes and code annotations were moved before the parameter and
return value descriptions for consistency.
Also, the description above lzma_filter_encoder_is_supported() about
not being able to list available filters was removed since
lzma_str_list_filters() will do this.
In the C99 and C17 standards, section 6.5.6 paragraph 8 means that
adding 0 to a null pointer is undefined behavior. As of writing,
"clang -fsanitize=undefined" (Clang 15) diagnoses this. However,
I'm not aware of any compiler that would take advantage of this
when optimizing (Clang 15 included). It's good to avoid this anyway
since compilers might some day infer that pointer arithmetic implies
that the pointer is not NULL. That is, the following foo() would then
unconditionally return 0, even for foo(NULL, 0):
void bar(char *a, char *b);
int foo(char *a, size_t n)
{
bar(a, a + n);
return a == NULL;
}
In contrast to C, C++ explicitly allows null pointer + 0. So if
the above is compiled as C++ then there is no undefined behavior
in the foo(NULL, 0) call.
To me it seems that changing the C standard would be the sane
thing to do (just add one sentence) as it would ensure that a huge
amount of old code won't break in the future. Based on web searches
it seems that a large number of codebases (where null pointer + 0
occurs) are being fixed instead to be future-proof in case compilers
will some day optimize based on it (like making the above foo(NULL, 0)
return 0) which in the worst case will cause security bugs.
Some projects don't plan to change it. For example, gnulib and thus
many GNU tools currently require that null pointer + 0 is defined:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2021-11/msg00000.htmlhttps://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/Other-portability-assumptions.html
In XZ Utils null pointer + 0 issue should be fixed after this
commit. This adds a few if-statements and thus branches to avoid
null pointer + 0. These check for size > 0 instead of ptr != NULL
because this way bugs where size > 0 && ptr == NULL will likely
get caught quickly. None of them are in hot spots so it shouldn't
matter for performance.
A little less readable version would be replacing
ptr + offset
with
offset != 0 ? ptr + offset : ptr
or creating a macro for it:
#define my_ptr_add(ptr, offset) \
((offset) != 0 ? ((ptr) + (offset)) : (ptr))
Checking for offset != 0 instead of ptr != NULL allows GCC >= 8.1,
Clang >= 7, and Clang-based ICX to optimize it to the very same code
as ptr + offset. That is, it won't create a branch. So for hot code
this could be a good solution to avoid null pointer + 0. Unfortunately
other compilers like ICC 2021 or MSVC 19.33 (VS2022) will create a
branch from my_ptr_add().
Thanks to Marcin Kowalczyk for reporting the problem:
https://github.com/tukaani-project/xz/issues/36
Standardizing each function to always specify parameters and return
values. Also moved the parameters and return values to the end of each
function description.
Use "member" to refer to struct members as that's the term used
by the C standard.
Use lzma_options_delta.dist and such in docs so that in Doxygen's
HTML output they will link to the doc of the struct member.
Clean up a few trailing white spaces too.
It gives C4146 here since unary minus with unsigned integer
is still unsigned (which is the intention here). Doing it
with substraction makes it clearer and avoids the warning.
Thanks to Nathan Moinvaziri for reporting this.
Standardizing each function to always specify parameters and return
values. Also moved the parameters and return values to the end of each
function description.
A few small things were reworded and long sentences broken up.
All functions now explicitly specify parameter and return values.
Also moved the note about SHA-256 functions not being exported to the
top of the file.
