# String handling in xnu
xnu implements most POSIX C string functions, including the inherited subset of
standard C string functions. Unfortunately, poor design choices have made many
of these functions, including the more modern `strl` functions, confusing or
unsafe. In addition, the advent of -fbounds-safety support in xnu is forcing
some string handling practices to be revisited. This document explains the
failings of POSIX C string functions, xnu's `strbuf` functions, and their
intersection with the -fbounds-safety C extension.
## The short-form guidance
* Use `strbuf*` when you have the length for all the strings;
* use `strl*` when you have the length of _one_ string, and the other is
guaranteed to be NUL-terminated;
* use `str*` when you don't have the length for any of the strings, and they
are all guaranteed to be NUL-terminated;
* stop using `strn*` functions.
## Replacing `strncmp`
`strncmp` is always wrong with -fbounds-safety, and it's unavailable as a
result. Given `strcmp(first, secnd, n)`, you need to know the types of `first`
and `secnd` to pick a replacement. Choose according to this table:
| strncmp(first, secnd, n) | __null_terminated first | __indexable first |
| ------------------------ | ------------------------- | ------------------------------- |
| __null_terminated secnd | n/a | strlcmp(first, secnd, n1) |
| __indexable secnd | strlcmp(secnd, first, n2) | strbufcmp(first, n1, secnd, n2) |
Using `strncmp` with two NUL-terminated strings is uncommon and it has no
direct replacement. The first person who needs to use -fbounds-safety in a file
that does this might need to write the string function.
If you try to use `strlcmp` and you get a diagnostic like this:
> passing 'const char *__indexable' to parameter of incompatible type
> 'const char *__null_terminated' is an unsafe operation ...
then you might need to swap the two string arguments. `strlcmp` is sensitive to
the argument order: just like for `strlcpy`, the indexable string goes first.
# The problems with string functions
POSIX/BSD string handling functions come in many variants:
* `str` functions (strlen, strcat, etc), unsafe for writing;
* `strn` functions (strnlen, strncat, etc), unsafe for writing;
* `strl` functions (strlcpy, strlcat, etc), safe but easily misunderstood.
`str` functions for writing (`strcpy`, `strcat`, etc) are **all** unsafe
because they don't care about the bounds of the output buffer. Most or all of
these functions have been deprecated or outright removed from xnu. You should
never use `str` functions to write to strings. Functions that simply read
strings (`strlen`, `strcmp`, `strchr`, etc) are generally found to be safe
because there is no confusion that their input must be NUL-terminated and there
is no danger of writing out of bounds (out of not writing at all).
`strn` functions for writing (`strncpy`, `strncat`, etc) are **all** unsafe.
`strncpy` doesn't NUL-terminate the output buffer, and `strncat` doesn't accept
a length for the output buffer. **All** new string buffers should include space
for a NUL terminator. `strn` functions for reading (`strncmp`, `strnlen`) are
_generally_ safe, but `strncmp` can cause confusion over which string is bound
by the given size. In extreme cases, this can create information disclosure
bugs or stability issues.
`strl` functions, from OpenBSD, only come in writing variants, and they always
NUL-terminate their output. This makes the writing part safe. (xnu adds `strl`
comparison functions, which do no writing and are also safe.) However, these
functions assume the output pointer is a buffer and the input is a NUL-
terminated string. Because of coexistence with `strn` functions that make no
such assumption, this mental model isn't entirely adopted by many users. For
instance, the following code is buggy:
```c
char output[4];
char input[8] = "abcdefgh"; /* not NUL-terminated */
strlcpy(output, input, sizeof(output));
```
`strlcpy` returns the length of the input string; in xnu's implementation,
literally by calling `strlen(input)`. Even though only 3 characters are written
to `output` (plus a NUL), `input` is read until reaching a NUL character. This
is always a problem from the perspective of memory disclosures, and in some
cases, it can also lead to stability issues.
# Changes with -fbounds-safety
When enabling -fbounds-safety, character buffers and NUL-terminated strings are
two distinct types, and they do not implicitly convert to each other. This
prevents confusing the two in the way that is problematic with `strlcpy`, for
instance. However, it creates new problems:
* What is the correct way to transform a character buffer into a NUL-terminated
string?
* When -fbounds-safety flags that the use of a string function was improper,
what is the solution?
The most common use of character buffers is to build a string, and then this
string is passed without bounds as a NUL-terminated string to downstream users.
-fbounds-safety and XNU enshrine this practice with the following additions:
* `tsnprintf`: like `snprintf`, but it returns a NUL-terminated string;
* `strbuf` functions, explicitly accepting character buffers and a distinct
count for each:
* `strbuflen(buffer, length)`: like `strnlen`;
* `strbufcmp(a, alen, b, len)`: like `strcmp`;
* `strbufcasecmp(a, alen, b, blen)`: like `strcasecmp`;
* `strbufcpy(a, alen, b, blen)`: like `strlcpy` but returns `a` as a NUL-
terminated string;
* `strbufcat(a, alen, b, blen)`: like `strlcat` but returns `a` as a NUL-
terminated string;
* `strl` (new) functions, accepting _one_ character buffer of a known size and
_one_ NUL-terminated string:
* `strlcmp(a, b, alen)`: like `strcmp`;
* `strlcasecmp(a, b, alen)`: like `strcasecmp`.
`strbuf` functions additionally all have overloads accepting character arrays
in lieu of a pointer+length pair: `strbuflen(array)`, `strbufcmp(a, b)`,
`strbufcasecmp(a, b)`, `strbufcpy(a, b)`, `strbufcat(a, b)`.
If the destination array of `strbufcpy` or `strbufcat` has a size of 0, they
return NULL without doing anything else. Otherwise, the destination is always
NUL-terminated and returned as a NUL-terminated string pointer.
While you are modifying a string, you should reference its data as some flavor
of indexable pointer, and only once you're done should you convert it to a
NUL-terminated string. NUL-terminated character pointers are generally not
suitable for modifications as bounds are determined by contents. Overwriting
any NUL character found through a `__null_terminated` pointer access will result
in a trap. For instance:
```c
void my_string_consuming_func(const char *);
// lots of __unsafe!
char *__null_terminated my_string = __unsafe_forge_null_terminated(
kalloc_data(my_string_size, Z_WAITOK));
memcpy(
__unsafe_forge_bidi_indexable(void *, my_string, my_string_size),
my_data,
my_string_size);
my_string_consuming_func(my_string);
```
This code converts the string pointer to a NUL-terminated string too early,
while it's still being modified. Keeping my_string a `__null_terminated` pointer
while it's being modified leads to more forging, which has more chances of
introducing errors, and is less ergonomic. Consider this instead:
```c
void my_string_consuming_func(const char *);
char *my_buffer = kalloc_data(my_string_size, Z_WAITOK);
const char *__null_terminated finished_string =
strbufcpy(my_buffer, my_string_size, my_data, my_string_size);
my_string_consuming_func(finished);
```
This example has two views of the same data: `my_buffer` (through which the
string is being modified) and `finished_string` (which is `const` and
NUL-terminated). Using `my_buffer` as an indexable pointer allows you to modify
it ergonomically, and importantly, without forging. You turn it into a
NUL-terminated string at the same time you turn it into a `const` reference,
signalling that you're done making changes.
With -fbounds-safety enabled, you should structure the final operation modifying
a character array such that you get a NUL-terminated view of it. For instance,
this plain C code:
```c
char thread_name[MAXTHREADNAMESIZE];
(void) snprintf(thread_name, sizeof(thread_name),
"dlil_input_%s", ifp->if_xname);
thread_set_thread_name(inp->dlth_thread, thread_name);
```
becomes:
```c
char thread_name_buf[MAXTHREADNAMESIZE];
const char *__null_terminated thread_name;
thread_name = tsnprintf(thread_name_buf, sizeof(thread_name_buf),
"dlil_input_%s", ifp->if_xname);
thread_set_thread_name(inp->dlth_thread, thread_name);
```
Although `tsnprintf` and `strbuf` functions return a `__null_terminated`
pointer to you for convenience, not all use cases are resolved by calling
`tsnprintf` or `strbufcpy` once. As a quick reference, with -fbounds-safety
enabled, you can use `__unsafe_null_terminated_from_indexable(p_start, p_nul)`
to convert a character array to a `__null_terminated` string if you need to
perform more manipulations. (`p_start` is a pointer to the first character, and
`p_nul` is a pointer to the NUL character in that string.) For instance, if you
build a string with successive calls to `scnprintf`, you would use
`__unsafe_null_terminated_from_indexable` at the end of the sequence to get your
NUL-terminated string pointer.
Occasionally, you need to turn a NUL-terminated string back into "char buffer"
(usually to interoperate with copy APIs that need a pointer and a byte count).
When possible, it's advised to use APIs that copy NUL-terminated pointers (like
`strlcpy`). Otherwise, convert the NUL-terminated string to an indexable buffer
using `__null_terminated_to_indexable` (if you don't need the NUL terminator to
be in bounds of the result pointer) or `__unsafe_null_terminated_to_indexable`
(if you need it). Also keep in mind that in code which pervasively deals with
buffers that have lengths and some of them happen to also be NUL-terminated
strings, it could be simply more convenient to keep string buffers in some
flavor of indexable pointers instead of having conversions from and to
NUL-terminated strings.
# I have a choice between `strn*`, `strl*`, `strbuf*`. Which one do I use?
You might come across cases where the same function in different families would
seem like they all do the trick. For instance:
```c
struct foo {
char buf1[10];
char buf2[16];
};
void bar(struct foo *f) {
/* how do I test whether buf1 and buf2 contain the same string? */
if (strcmp(f->buf1, f->buf2) == 0) { /* ... */ }
if (strncmp(f->buf1, f->buf2, sizeof(f->buf1)) == 0) { /* ... */ }
if (strlcmp(f->buf1, f->buf2, sizeof(f->buf1)) == 0) { /* ... */ }
if (strbufcmp(f->buf1, f->buf2) == 0) { /* ... */ }
}
```
Without -fbounds-safety, these all work the same, but when you enable it,
`strbufcmp` could be the only one that builds. If you do not have the privilege
of -fbounds-safety to guide you to the best choice, as a rule of thumb, you
should prefer APIs in the following order:
1. `strbuf*` APIs;
2. `strl*` APIs;
3. `str*` APIs.
That is, to implement `bar`, you have a choice of `strcmp`, `strncmp` and
`strbufcmp`, and you should prefer `strbufcmp`.
`strn` functions are **never** recommended. You should use `strbuflen` over
`strnlen` (they do the same thing, but having a separate `strbuflen` function
makes the guidance to avoid `strn` functions easier), and you should use
`strbufcmp`, `strlcmp` or even `strcmp` over `strncmp` (depending on whether
you know the length of each string, of just one, or of neither).