Re: [PATCH 1/4] Add tests for fortification of bcopy and bzero.

[Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>]

LGTM.

On 17/08/2016 14:19, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> This was formerly bundled with the tests for fortification of
> explicit_bzero, but is unconnected and I'd like to go ahead and land
> it ASAP.
> 
> zw
> 
> 	* debug/tst-chk1.c: Add tests for fortification of bcopy and bzero.
> ---
>  debug/tst-chk1.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 61 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/debug/tst-chk1.c b/debug/tst-chk1.c
> index 4f968ee..478c2fb 100644
> --- a/debug/tst-chk1.c
> +++ b/debug/tst-chk1.c
> @@ -143,6 +143,11 @@ do_test (void)
>    if (memcmp (buf, "aabcdefghi", 10))
>      FAIL ();
>  
> +  memcpy (buf, "abcdefghij", 10);
> +  bcopy (buf, buf + 1, 9);
> +  if (memcmp (buf, "aabcdefghi", 10))
> +    FAIL ();
> +
>    if (mempcpy (buf + 5, "abcde", 5) != buf + 10
>        || memcmp (buf, "aabcdabcde", 10))
>      FAIL ();
> @@ -151,6 +156,10 @@ do_test (void)
>    if (memcmp (buf, "aabcdabcjj", 10))
>      FAIL ();
>  
> +  bzero (buf + 8, 2);
> +  if (memcmp (buf, "aabcdabc\0\0", 10))
> +    FAIL ();
> +
>    strcpy (buf + 4, "EDCBA");
>    if (memcmp (buf, "aabcEDCBA", 10))
>      FAIL ();
> @@ -175,6 +184,11 @@ do_test (void)
>    if (memcmp (buf, "aabcdefghi", 10))
>      FAIL ();
>  
> +  memcpy (buf, "abcdefghij", l0 + 10);
> +  bcopy (buf, buf + 1, l0 + 9);
> +  if (memcmp (buf, "aabcdefghi", 10))
> +    FAIL ();
> +
>    if (mempcpy (buf + 5, "abcde", l0 + 5) != buf + 10
>        || memcmp (buf, "aabcdabcde", 10))
>      FAIL ();
> @@ -183,6 +197,10 @@ do_test (void)
>    if (memcmp (buf, "aabcdabcjj", 10))
>      FAIL ();
>  
> +  bzero (buf + 8, l0 + 2);
> +  if (memcmp (buf, "aabcdabc\0\0", 10))
> +    FAIL ();
> +
>    strcpy (buf + 4, str1 + 5);
>    if (memcmp (buf, "aabcEDCBA", 10))
>      FAIL ();
> @@ -214,11 +232,18 @@ do_test (void)
>    if (memcmp (buf, "aabcEcdZY", 10))
>      FAIL ();
>  
> +  /* The following tests are supposed to succeed at all fortify
> +     levels, even though they overflow a.buf1 into a.buf2.  */
>    memcpy (a.buf1, "abcdefghij", l0 + 10);
>    memmove (a.buf1 + 1, a.buf1, l0 + 9);
>    if (memcmp (a.buf1, "aabcdefghi", 10))
>      FAIL ();
>  
> +  memcpy (a.buf1, "abcdefghij", l0 + 10);
> +  bcopy (a.buf1, a.buf1 + 1, l0 + 9);
> +  if (memcmp (a.buf1, "aabcdefghi", 10))
> +    FAIL ();
> +
>    if (mempcpy (a.buf1 + 5, "abcde", l0 + 5) != a.buf1 + 10
>        || memcmp (a.buf1, "aabcdabcde", 10))
>      FAIL ();
> @@ -227,6 +252,10 @@ do_test (void)
>    if (memcmp (a.buf1, "aabcdabcjj", 10))
>      FAIL ();
>  
> +  bzero (a.buf1 + 8, l0 + 2);
> +  if (memcmp (a.buf1, "aabcdabc\0\0", 10))
> +    FAIL ();
> +
>  #if __USE_FORTIFY_LEVEL < 2
>    /* The following tests are supposed to crash with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
>       and sufficient GCC support, as the string operations overflow
> @@ -284,6 +313,14 @@ do_test (void)
>    memmove (buf + 2, buf + 1, l0 + 9);
>    CHK_FAIL_END
>  
> +  CHK_FAIL_START
> +  bcopy (buf + 1, buf + 2, 9);
> +  CHK_FAIL_END
> +
> +  CHK_FAIL_START
> +  bcopy (buf + 1, buf + 2, l0 + 9);
> +  CHK_FAIL_END
> +
>    CHK_FAIL_START
>    p = (char *) mempcpy (buf + 6, "abcde", 5);
>    CHK_FAIL_END
> @@ -300,6 +337,14 @@ do_test (void)
>    memset (buf + 9, 'j', l0 + 2);
>    CHK_FAIL_END
>  
> +  CHK_FAIL_START
> +  bzero (buf + 9, 2);
> +  CHK_FAIL_END
> +
> +  CHK_FAIL_START
> +  bzero (buf + 9, l0 + 2);
> +  CHK_FAIL_END
> +
>    CHK_FAIL_START
>    strcpy (buf + 5, str1 + 5);
>    CHK_FAIL_END
> @@ -377,6 +422,14 @@ do_test (void)
>    memmove (a.buf1 + 2, a.buf1 + 1, l0 + 9);
>    CHK_FAIL_END
>  
> +  CHK_FAIL_START
> +  bcopy (a.buf1 + 1, a.buf1 + 2, 9);
> +  CHK_FAIL_END
> +
> +  CHK_FAIL_START
> +  bcopy (a.buf1 + 1, a.buf1 + 2, l0 + 9);
> +  CHK_FAIL_END
> +
>    CHK_FAIL_START
>    p = (char *) mempcpy (a.buf1 + 6, "abcde", 5);
>    CHK_FAIL_END
> @@ -393,6 +446,14 @@ do_test (void)
>    memset (a.buf1 + 9, 'j', l0 + 2);
>    CHK_FAIL_END
>  
> +  CHK_FAIL_START
> +  bzero (a.buf1 + 9, 2);
> +  CHK_FAIL_END
> +
> +  CHK_FAIL_START
> +  bzero (a.buf1 + 9, l0 + 2);
> +  CHK_FAIL_END
> +
>  # if __USE_FORTIFY_LEVEL >= 2
>  #  define O 0
>  # else
>