Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

encoding/binary: removal of unnecessary boundary checks. #35040

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

encoding/binary: removal of unnecessary boundary checks. #35040

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

lemmerelassal
Copy link

When creating a slice, e.g.: a 4 byte array can become optimized to 3 bytes only, resulting in a panic from the boundary check, which was experienced during decoding of LoRa packets.

Fixes issue #14808.

@googlebot
Copy link

Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project (if not, look below for help). Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign.

Once you've signed (or fixed any issues), please reply here with @googlebot I signed it! and we'll verify it.


What to do if you already signed the CLA

Individual signers
Corporate signers

ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info.

@googlebot googlebot added the cla: no Used by googlebot to label PRs as having an invalid CLA. The text of this label should not change. label Oct 21, 2019
@lemmerelassal
Copy link
Author

@googlebot I signed it!

@googlebot
Copy link

CLAs look good, thanks!

ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info.

@googlebot googlebot added cla: yes Used by googlebot to label PRs as having a valid CLA. The text of this label should not change. and removed cla: no Used by googlebot to label PRs as having an invalid CLA. The text of this label should not change. labels Oct 21, 2019
@gopherbot
Copy link
Contributor

This PR (HEAD: 801ef65) has been imported to Gerrit for code review.

Please visit https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/202517 to see it.

Tip: You can toggle comments from me using the comments slash command (e.g. /comments off)
See the Wiki page for more info

@gopherbot
Copy link
Contributor

Message from Gobot Gobot:

Patch Set 1:

Congratulations on opening your first change. Thank you for your contribution!

Next steps:
Within the next week or so, a maintainer will review your change and provide
feedback. See https://golang.org/doc/contribute.html#review for more info and
tips to get your patch through code review.

Most changes in the Go project go through a few rounds of revision. This can be
surprising to people new to the project. The careful, iterative review process
is our way of helping mentor contributors and ensuring that their contributions
have a lasting impact.

During May-July and Nov-Jan the Go project is in a code freeze, during which
little code gets reviewed or merged. If a reviewer responds with a comment like
R=go1.11, it means that this CL will be reviewed as part of the next development
cycle. See https://golang.org/s/release for more details.


Please don’t reply on this GitHub thread. Visit golang.org/cl/202517.
After addressing review feedback, remember to publish your drafts!

@gopherbot
Copy link
Contributor

Message from Ian Lance Taylor:

Patch Set 1:

The description says that you are removing unnecessary boundary checks, but that's not what you are doing. You are changing the behavior of these methods when a short slice is passed in.

I don't see why that is desirable. The methods expect full size slices and should not be called on short slices. It's very easy for calling code to avoid calling these methods if they will not work.


Please don’t reply on this GitHub thread. Visit golang.org/cl/202517.
After addressing review feedback, remember to publish your drafts!

@gopherbot
Copy link
Contributor

Message from Brad Fitzpatrick:

Patch Set 1: Code-Review-2

Also, these patterns are recognized by the compiler and optimized to single instructions.

This CL is almost certainly much slower than the original, in addition to changing the behavior.


Please don’t reply on this GitHub thread. Visit golang.org/cl/202517.
After addressing review feedback, remember to publish your drafts!

@gopherbot
Copy link
Contributor

Message from Lemmer El Assal:

Patch Set 1:

Patch Set 1:

The description says that you are removing unnecessary boundary checks, but that's not what you are doing. You are changing the behavior of these methods when a short slice is passed in.

Go optimizes a []byte subslice of 4 (e.g.: buffer[4:9]) to shorter slices when the value is 0, which cause a panic.

Would it be preferrable to add this as a separate function altogether?

I don't see why that is desirable. The methods expect full size slices and should not be called on short slices. It's very easy for calling code to avoid calling these methods if they will not work.


Please don’t reply on this GitHub thread. Visit golang.org/cl/202517.
After addressing review feedback, remember to publish your drafts!

@gopherbot
Copy link
Contributor

Message from Brad Fitzpatrick:

Patch Set 1:

Patch Set 1:

Patch Set 1:

The description says that you are removing unnecessary boundary checks, but that's not what you are doing. You are changing the behavior of these methods when a short slice is passed in.

Go optimizes a []byte subslice of 4 (e.g.: buffer[4:9]) to shorter slices when the value is 0, which cause a panic.

I don't understand. Which value?

Would it be preferrable to add this as a separate function altogether?

I don't know which function you want so I can't say.

I don't see why that is desirable. The methods expect full size slices and should not be called on short slices. It's very easy for calling code to avoid calling these methods if they will not work.


Please don’t reply on this GitHub thread. Visit golang.org/cl/202517.
After addressing review feedback, remember to publish your drafts!

@gopherbot
Copy link
Contributor

Message from Go Bot:

Patch Set 1:

Congratulations on opening your first change. Thank you for your contribution!

Next steps:
Within the next week or so, a maintainer will review your change and provide
feedback. See https://golang.org/doc/contribute.html#review for more info and
tips to get your patch through code review.

Most changes in the Go project go through a few rounds of revision. This can be
surprising to people new to the project. The careful, iterative review process
is our way of helping mentor contributors and ensuring that their contributions
have a lasting impact.

During May-July and Nov-Jan the Go project is in a code freeze, during which
little code gets reviewed or merged. If a reviewer responds with a comment like
R=go1.11, it means that this CL will be reviewed as part of the next development
cycle. See https://golang.org/s/release for more details.


Please don’t reply on this GitHub thread. Visit golang.org/cl/202517.
After addressing review feedback, remember to publish your drafts!

@heschi heschi closed this Dec 15, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cla: yes Used by googlebot to label PRs as having a valid CLA. The text of this label should not change.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants