On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 12:02 PM Noah Goldstein wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> This is a proposal for a new interface to be supported by libc.
>
> The new interface is the same as the old 'bcmp()' routine. Essentially
> the goal of this proposal is to add a reserved namespace for a new
> function, '__memcmpeq()', which shares the same behavior as the old
> 'bcmp()'.
>
> Interface
>
> int __memcmpeq(void const * s1, const void * s2, size_t n)
>
>
> Description
>
> The '__memcmpeq()' function would compare the two byte sequences 's1'
> and 's2', each of length 'n'. If the two byte sequences are equal, the
> return would be zero. Otherwise it would return some non-zero
> value. 'memcmp()' is a valid implementation of '__memcmpeq()'.
>
>
> Use Case
>
> 1. The goal is that '__memcmpeq()' will be usable as an optimization
>by compilers if a program uses the return value of 'memcmp()' as a
>boolean. For example:
>
>
> void foo(const void* s1, const void* s2, size_t n)
> {
> if (!memcmp(s1, s2, n)) {
> printf("memcmp can be optimized to __memcmpeq in this use case\n");
> }
> }
>
>
> - In the above case '__memcmpeq()' could be used instead. Due to the
> simpler constraints on the return value of '__memcmpeq()', it will
> be able to be implemented more optimally for this case than
> 'memcmp()'. If there is no separately optimized version of
> '__memcmpeq()' can alias 'memcmp()' and thus be at least equally as
> fast.
>
> 2. Possibly use cases in security as the runtime of the function will
>be *more* oblivious to the byte sequences being compared.
>
>
> Argument Specifications
>
> 1. 's1'
> - All 'n' bytes in the byte sequence starting at 's1' and ending
> at, but not including, 's1 + n' must be accessible memory. There
> are no guarantees about the order the sequence will be
> traversed.
> 2. 's2'
> - All 'n' bytes in the byte sequence starting at 's2' and ending
> at, but not including, 's2 + n' must be accessible memory. There
> are no guarantees about the order the sequence will be
> traversed.
> 3. 'n'
> - 'n' may be any value that does not violate the specifications on
> 's1' and 's2'.
>
> If any of the argument specifications are violated there are no
> guarantees about the behavior of the interface.
>
>
> Return Value Specification
>
> If the byte sequences starting at 's1' and 's2' are equals the
> function will return zero. Otherwise the function will return a
> non-zero value.
>
> Equality between the byte sequences starting at 's1' and 's2' is
> defined as follows:
>
> 1. If 'n' is zero the two sequences are zero.
> 2. If 'n' is non-zero then for all 'i' in range [0, n) the byte at
>offset 'i' of 's1' equals the byte at offset 'i' in 's2'.
>
> For a simple C implementation of '__memcmpeq()' could be as follows:
>
>
> int __memcmpeq(const void* s1, const void* s2, size_t n)
> {
> int ret;
> size_t i;
> const char *s1c, *s2c;
> s1c = (const char*)s1;
> s2c = (const char*)s2;
> for (i = 0, ret = 0; ret == 0 && i < n; ++i) {
> ret = s1c[i] - s2c[i]
> }
> return ret;
> }
>
>
> Notes
>
> This interface is essentially old 'bcmp()' and 'memcmp()' will always
> be a valid implementation of '__memcmpeq()'.
>
>
> ABI vs API
>
> This proposal is for '__memcmpeq()' as a new ABI. As an ABI
> '__memcmpeq()' will have value, as using the return value of
> 'memcmp()' is quite idiomatic in C code.
>
> It is, however, possible that this would also be useful as a new API
> as well. Especially if there are likely use cases where the compiler
> would be unable to prove that '__memcmpeq()' would be a valid
> replacement for 'memcmp()'.
>
>
> Further Options
>
> If this proposal is received positively, libc could also add
> interfaces for '__streq()', '__strneq()', '__wcseq()' and '__wcsneq()'
> which similarly would loosen return value restrictions on 'strcmp()',
> 'strncmp()', 'wcscmp()' and 'wcsncmp()' respectively.
>
> Best,
> Noah
ABI support for '__memcmpeq' have been pushed for GLIBC with:
commit 44829b3ddb64e99e37343a0f25b2c082387d31a5
