On 09/20/21 17:30, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 05:23:30PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 09/20/21 14:33, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 12:03:51PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 11:37:02AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>>>> What distro / go version do you see this on, as I can't reproduce
>>>> this pointer problem with a standalone demo app ?
>>>
>>> For me this started to happen after upgrading to
>>> golang-bin-1.17-2.fc36.x86_64 in Rawhide. It also caused this error:
>>
>> Hmm, I still cant reproduce the problem that Laszlo is fixing
>>
>> $ cat str.c
>>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>>
>> void foo(char **str) {
>> for (int i = 0; str[i] != NULL; i++) {
>> fprintf(stderr, "%d: %s (0x%p)\n", i, str[i], str[i]);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> $ cat str.go
>> package main
>>
>> /*
>> #cgo LDFLAGS: -L/home/berrange/t/lib -lstr
>>
>> #include <stdlib.h>
>>
>> extern void foo(char **str);
>>
>> */
>> import "C"
>>
>> import (
>> "fmt"
>> "unsafe"
>> )
>>
>> func array_elem(arr **C.char, idx int) **C.char {
>> return (**C.char)(unsafe.Pointer(uintptr(unsafe.Pointer(arr)) +
>> (unsafe.Sizeof(arr) * uintptr(idx))))
>> }
>>
>> func arg_string_list1(xs []string) **C.char {
>> r := make([]*C.char, 1+len(xs))
>> for i, x := range xs {
>> r[i] = C.CString(x)
>> }
>> r[len(xs)] = nil
>> return &r[0]
>> }
>>
>> func arg_string_list2(xs []string) **C.char {
>> var r **C.char
>> r = (**C.char)(C.malloc(C.size_t(unsafe.Sizeof(*r) * (1 + uintptr(len(xs))))))
>> for i, x := range xs {
>> str := array_elem(r, i)
>> *str = C.CString(x)
>> }
>> str := array_elem(r, len(xs))
>> *str = nil
>> return r
>> }
>>
>> func free_string_list(argv **C.char) {
>> for i := 0; ; i++ {
>> str := (**C.char)(unsafe.Pointer(uintptr(unsafe.Pointer(argv)) +
>> (unsafe.Sizeof(*argv) * uintptr(i))))
>> if *str == nil {
>> break
>> }
>> fmt.Printf("%x\n", *str)
>> C.free(unsafe.Pointer(*str))
>> }
>> }
>>
>> func bar(str []string) {
>> cstr1 := arg_string_list1(str)
>> defer free_string_list(cstr1)
>> C.foo(cstr1)
>> cstr2 := arg_string_list2(str)
>> defer free_string_list(cstr2)
>> C.foo(cstr2)
>> }
>>
>> func main() {
>> bar([]string{"hello", "world"})
>> }
>>
>>
>> My interpretation is that arg_string_list1 impl here should have
>> raised the error that Laszlo reports, but both impls work fine
>
> Can you create a new structure type, make the C function take the structure (or a
pointer to the structure), and in the structure, make the field have this type:
>
> char * const * str;
>
> Because this is the scenario where the libguestfs test suite fails (panics). The
libguestfs test suite has a *different* case that does match your example directly, and
*that* case works in the libguestfs test suite flawlessly. The panic surfaces only in the
"char*const* embedded in struct" case. (I assume "const" makes no
difference, but who knows!)
Oh, that makes sense, because you have a Go pointer to the storage for
the struct, and then the 'const *const *str' field is initialized with
a Go pointer returned from the arg_string_list().
You're allowed to pass a Go pointer to C via CGo, but the memory that
points to is not allowed to contained further Go pointers. So the struct
fields must strictly use a C pointer.
If I take your last paragraph here and work it into the commit message /
comment of this patch, will you accept the code in the patch?
I really don't insist on getting *this* particular patch in. What I'd
like to achieve is a clean "make check" baseline, so I can run the test
suite regularly, as I get into fixing other libguestfs BZs. I don't
intend to "maintain" Go bindings; I consider this a one-off fix. I'm
uncomfortable contributing any Go code that's not as "thin" as I can
possibly manage. (And honestly I think the swaths of "explicit unsafe"
just make things unreadable.)
So I could do two things:
- push patches #1-#3 and drop #4, allowing someone else to fix the issue
described in #4 in more idiomatic Go,
- post a v2 of #4 with updated comments / commit message.
I think a "less idiomatic but technically correct" Go binding is still
an improvement over a panicking Go runtime, but again, if someone can
fix this more idiomatically, I'll *gladly* defer to them.
Rich, what's your take?
Thanks!
Laszlo