On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 01:07:06PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > We have multiple clients of qemu_strtosz (qemu-io, the opts visitor, > the keyval visitor), and it gets annoying that edge-case testing is > impacted by implicit rounding to 53 bits of precision due to parsing > with strtod(). As an example posted by Rich Jones: > $ nbdkit memory $(( 2**63 - 2**30 )) --run \ > 'build/qemu-io -f raw "$uri" -c "w -P 3 $(( 2**63 - 2**30 - 512 )) 512" ' > write failed: Input/output error > > because 9223372035781033472 got rounded to 0x7fffffffc0000000 which is > out of bounds. > > It is also worth noting that our existing parser, by virtue of using > strtod(), accepts decimal AND hex numbers, even though test-cutils > previously lacked any coverage of the latter. We do have existing > clients that expect a hex parse to work (for example, iotest 33 using > qemu-io -c "write -P 0xa 0x200 0x400"), but strtod() parses "08" as 8 > rather than as an invalid octal number, so we know there are no > clients that depend on octal. Our use of strtod() also means that > "0x1.8k" would actually parse as 1536 (the fraction is 8/16), rather > than 1843 (if the fraction were 8/10); but as this was not covered in > the testsuite, I have no qualms forbidding hex fractions as invalid, > so this patch declares that the use of fractions is only supported > with decimal input, and enhances the testsuite to document that. > > Our previous use of strtod() meant that -1 parsed as a negative; now > that we parse with strtoull(), negative values can wrap around module > 2^64, so we have to explicitly check whether the user passed in a '-'. > > We also had no testsuite coverage of "1.1e0k", which happened to parse > under strtod() but is unlikely to occur in practice; as long as we are > making things more robust, it is easy enough to reject the use of > exponents in a strtod parse. > > The fix is done by breaking the parse into an integer prefix (no loss > in precision), rejecting negative values (since we can no longer rely > on strtod() to do that), determining if a decimal or hexadecimal parse > was intended (with the new restriction that a fractional hex parse is > not allowed), and where appropriate, using a floating point fractional > parse (where we also scan to reject use of exponents in the fraction). > The bulk of the patch is then updates to the testsuite to match our > new precision, as well as adding new cases we reject (whether they > were rejected or inadvertenly accepted before). > > Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> > > --- > > Note that this approach differs from what has been attempted in the > past; see the thread starting at > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-12/msg00852.html > That approach tried to parse both as strtoull and strtod and take > whichever was longer, but that was harder to document. > --- > tests/test-cutils.c | 79 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- > tests/test-keyval.c | 24 +++++++++--- > tests/test-qemu-opts.c | 20 +++++++--- > util/cutils.c | 77 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- > tests/qemu-iotests/049.out | 7 +++- > 5 files changed, 156 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tests/test-cutils.c b/tests/test-cutils.c > index 1aa8351520ae..0c2c89d6f113 100644 > --- a/tests/test-cutils.c > +++ b/tests/test-cutils.c > @@ -1960,6 +1960,13 @@ static void test_qemu_strtosz_simple(void) > g_assert_cmpint(res, ==, 0); > g_assert(endptr == str + 1); > > + /* Leading 0 gives decimal results, not octal */ > + str = "08"; > + err = qemu_strtosz(str, &endptr, &res); > + g_assert_cmpint(err, ==, 0); > + g_assert_cmpint(res, ==, 8); > + g_assert(endptr == str + 2); > + > str = "12345"; > err = qemu_strtosz(str, &endptr, &res); > g_assert_cmpint(err, ==, 0); > @@ -1970,7 +1977,7 @@ static void test_qemu_strtosz_simple(void) > g_assert_cmpint(err, ==, 0); > g_assert_cmpint(res, ==, 12345); > > - /* Note: precision is 53 bits since we're parsing with strtod() */ > + /* Note: If there is no '.', we get full 64 bits of precision */
IIUC, our goal is that we should never loose precision for the non-fractional part. > > str = "9007199254740991"; /* 2^53-1 */ > err = qemu_strtosz(str, &endptr, &res); > @@ -1987,7 +1994,7 @@ static void test_qemu_strtosz_simple(void) > str = "9007199254740993"; /* 2^53+1 */ > err = qemu_strtosz(str, &endptr, &res); > g_assert_cmpint(err, ==, 0); > - g_assert_cmpint(res, ==, 0x20000000000000); /* rounded to 53 bits */ > + g_assert_cmpint(res, ==, 0x20000000000001); > g_assert(endptr == str + 16); > > str = "18446744073709549568"; /* 0xfffffffffffff800 (53 msbs set) */ > @@ -1999,11 +2006,35 @@ static void test_qemu_strtosz_simple(void) > str = "18446744073709550591"; /* 0xfffffffffffffbff */ > err = qemu_strtosz(str, &endptr, &res); > g_assert_cmpint(err, ==, 0); > - g_assert_cmpint(res, ==, 0xfffffffffffff800); /* rounded to 53 bits */ > + g_assert_cmpint(res, ==, 0xfffffffffffffbff); > g_assert(endptr == str + 20); > > - /* 0x7ffffffffffffe00..0x7fffffffffffffff get rounded to > - * 0x8000000000000000, thus -ERANGE; see test_qemu_strtosz_erange() */ > + str = "18446744073709551615"; /* 0xffffffffffffffff */ > + err = qemu_strtosz(str, &endptr, &res); > + g_assert_cmpint(err, ==, 0); > + g_assert_cmpint(res, ==, 0xffffffffffffffff); > + g_assert(endptr == str + 20); > + > +} > + > +static void test_qemu_strtosz_hex(void) > +{ > + const char *str; > + const char *endptr; > + int err; > + uint64_t res = 0xbaadf00d; > + > + str = "0x0"; > + err = qemu_strtosz(str, &endptr, &res); > + g_assert_cmpint(err, ==, 0); > + g_assert_cmpint(res, ==, 0); > + g_assert(endptr == str + 3); > + > + str = "0xa"; > + err = qemu_strtosz(str, &endptr, &res); > + g_assert_cmpint(err, ==, 0); > + g_assert_cmpint(res, ==, 10); > + g_assert(endptr == str + 3); I'd stick a '0xab' or "0xae" in there, to demonstrate that we're not accidentally applyin the scaling units for "b" and "e" in hex. > } > > static void test_qemu_strtosz_units(void) > @@ -2106,6 +2137,21 @@ static void test_qemu_strtosz_invalid(void) > err = qemu_strtosz(str, &endptr, &res); > g_assert_cmpint(err, ==, -EINVAL); > g_assert(endptr == str); > + > + str = "1.1e5"; > + err = qemu_strtosz(str, &endptr, &res); > + g_assert_cmpint(err, ==, -EINVAL); > + g_assert(endptr == str); > + > + str = "1.1B"; > + err = qemu_strtosz(str, &endptr, &res); > + g_assert_cmpint(err, ==, -EINVAL); > + g_assert(endptr == str); > + > + str = "0x1.8k"; > + err = qemu_strtosz(str, &endptr, &res); > + g_assert_cmpint(err, ==, -EINVAL); > + g_assert(endptr == str); > } A test case to reject negative numers ? > @@ -253,40 +264,66 @@ static int do_strtosz(const char *nptr, const char > **end, > int retval; > const char *endptr; > unsigned char c; > - int mul_required = 0; > - double val, mul, integral, fraction; > + bool mul_required = false; > + uint64_t val; > + int64_t mul; > + double fraction = 0.0; > > - retval = qemu_strtod_finite(nptr, &endptr, &val); > + /* Parse integral portion as decimal. */ > + retval = qemu_strtou64(nptr, &endptr, 10, &val); > if (retval) { > goto out; > } > - fraction = modf(val, &integral); > - if (fraction != 0) { > - mul_required = 1; > + if (strchr(nptr, '-') != NULL) { > + retval = -ERANGE; > + goto out; > + } > + if (val == 0 && (*endptr == 'x' || *endptr == 'X')) { This works as an approach but it might be more clear to just check for hex upfront. if (g_str_has_prefix("0x", val) || g_str_has_prefix("0X", val)) { ... do hex parse.. } else { ... do dec parse.. } > + /* Input looks like hex, reparse, and insist on no fraction. */ > + retval = qemu_strtou64(nptr, &endptr, 16, &val); > + if (retval) { > + goto out; > + } > + if (*endptr == '.') { > + endptr = nptr; > + retval = -EINVAL; > + goto out; > + } > + } else if (*endptr == '.') { > + /* Input is fractional, insist on 0 <= fraction < 1, with no > exponent */ > + retval = qemu_strtod_finite(endptr, &endptr, &fraction); > + if (retval) { > + endptr = nptr; > + goto out; > + } > + if (fraction >= 1.0 || memchr(nptr, 'e', endptr - nptr) > + || memchr(nptr, 'E', endptr - nptr)) { Can this be simplified ? Fraction can be > 1, if-and only-if exponent syntax is used IIUC. Shouldn't we be passing 'endptr+1' as the first arg to memchr ? nptr points to the leading decimal part, and we only need to scan the fractional part. Also what happens with "1.1e" - that needs to be treated as a exabyte suffix, and not rejected as an exponent. We ought to test that if we don't already. > + endptr = nptr; > + retval = -EINVAL; > + goto out; > + } > + if (fraction != 0) { > + mul_required = true; > + } > } > c = *endptr; > mul = suffix_mul(c, unit); > - if (mul >= 0) { > + if (mul > 0) { > endptr++; > } else { > mul = suffix_mul(default_suffix, unit); > - assert(mul >= 0); > + assert(mul > 0); > } > if (mul == 1 && mul_required) { > + endptr = nptr; > retval = -EINVAL; > goto out; > } > - /* > - * Values near UINT64_MAX overflow to 2**64 when converting to double > - * precision. Compare against the maximum representable double precision > - * value below 2**64, computed as "the next value after 2**64 (0x1p64) in > - * the direction of 0". > - */ > - if ((val * mul > nextafter(0x1p64, 0)) || val < 0) { > + if (val > UINT64_MAX / mul) { > retval = -ERANGE; > goto out; > } > - *result = val * mul; > + *result = val * mul + (uint64_t) (fraction * mul); > retval = 0; > > out: Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|