C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: Poisoned initializers

From: Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2021 10:49:10 -0400
On 6/12/21 10:08 AM, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Std-Proposals wrote:
> Il 12/06/21 15:05, Ville Voutilainen via Std-Proposals ha scritto:
>> template <class T> remove_cvref_t<T> unsanitize(T&& t);
>> Returns: Either t or an unspecified value. If an unspecified value is
>> returned, the value and copies of the
>> value may be treated as indeterminate values until a subsequent
>> assignment or bitwise copy of a non-indeterminate
>> value is performed to the storage location where such a result or copy
>> of the result of unsanitize() is stored.
> Basically the problemâ„¢ today would be that an implementation such as
>> #if defined(__has_feature) && __has_feature(memory_sanitizer)
>> T x;
>> return x;
>> #else
>> return std::forward<T>(t);
>> #endif
> would make MSAN trip on the return itself? (Didn't try on a complete
> testcase...)

Yeah, I haven't been able to think of a way to return a poisoned/tainted
value that wouldn't already trip up an analyzer.

Perhaps this warrants a distinct class of values. It doesn't fit in
with the lvalue, xvalue, prvalue categories, but rather another kind of
value property. I think there is a distinction to be made between a
poisoned value vs some other tainted or not-yet-sanitized value; any
access of the former indicates a defect while for the latter, the value
may be sanitized through validation (as is common when data is read from
the network, a file, user input, etc...).

In either case, I think there is a need to be able to propagate
poison/taint. From the earlier example:

    struct S {
       S() {}
       S(int v) : dm(v) {}

       // dm may only be used if a value was provided during construction.
       int dm = POISON(-1);

Copy construction of an S object (whether by a default copy constructor
or user provided copy constructor, assuming the latter actually does a
copy) should propagate poison/taint, not be itself indicative of a
defect. Drawing this line may be challenging or may require an opt-out
mechanism like MemorySanitizer's no_sanitize attribute


> Thanks,

Received on 2021-06-12 09:49:14