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

HPCC-18585 Replace uses of rand() with fastRand() #10540

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Oct 24, 2017

Conversation

jakesmith
Copy link
Member

@jakesmith jakesmith commented Oct 23, 2017

Coverity can warn of an unsafe usage of rand(), where we want
a fast random call and know it's in a safe context explicitly use
one.
With an initial implementation that simply wraps rand() with a
coverity comment to suppress the WEAK_CRYPTO Coverity warning.

Signed-off-by: Jake Smith jake.smith@lexisnexisrisk.com

Type of change:

  • This change is a bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue).
  • This change is a new feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality).
  • This change improves the code (refactor or other change that does not change the functionality)
  • This change fixes warnings (the fix does not alter the functionality or the generated code)
  • This change is a breaking change (fix or feature that will cause existing behavior to change).
  • This change alters the query API (existing queries will have to be recompiled)

Checklist:

  • My code follows the code style of this project.
    • My code does not create any new warnings from compiler, build system, or lint.
  • The commit message is properly formatted and free of typos.
    • The commit message title makes sense in a changelog, by itself.
    • The commit is signed.
  • My change requires a change to the documentation.
    • I have updated the documentation accordingly, or...
    • I have created a JIRA ticket to update the documentation.
    • Any new interfaces or exported functions are appropriately commented.
  • I have read the CONTRIBUTORS document.
  • The change has been fully tested:
    • I have added tests to cover my changes.
    • All new and existing tests passed.
    • I have checked that this change does not introduce memory leaks.
    • I have used Valgrind or similar tools to check for potential issues.
  • I have given due consideration to all of the following potential concerns:
    • Scalability
    • Performance
    • Security
    • Thread-safety
    • Premature optimization
    • Existing deployed queries will not be broken
    • This change fixes the problem, not just the symptom
    • The target branch of this pull request is appropriate for such a change.
  • There are no similar instances of the same problem that should be addressed
    • I have addressed them here
    • I have raised JIRA issues to address them separately
  • This is a user interface / front-end modification
    • I have tested my changes in multiple modern browsers
    • The component(s) render as expected

Testing:

Unit tests ran/passed.

@hpcc-jirabot
Copy link

@jakesmith
Copy link
Member Author

@richardkchapman - please review

@richardkchapman
Copy link
Member

Looking at the implementation of getRandom():

unsigned getRandom()
{
CriticalBlock block(gobalRandomSect); // this is a shame but it is not thread-safe without
return RandomMain.next();
}

this may not be such a brilliant idea

@richardkchapman
Copy link
Member

Perhaps for the cases where all we want is a fast pseudo-random number for collision-avoidance or randomized testing purposes that does not need to be cryptographically secure, we should define something in jlib (call it fastrand() or similar) that just calls rand() but leaves us with only one place to mark as a coverity exception ?

@jakesmith
Copy link
Member Author

Yes, probably.

There may be existing places that call getRandom() which are more time critical, but I don't think the places changed in this PR are / would be impacted by the crit entry / leave.
With the exception perhaps of the roxie ones which do e.g. : waiting.dequeue(getRandom() % lim);

@jakesmith
Copy link
Member Author

jakesmith commented Oct 23, 2017

Apparently rand() isn't thread safe anyway, though not sure what implications of re-entry are.

@jakesmith jakesmith changed the title HPCC-18585 prefer use of getRandom() over rand()/random() HPCC-18585 Replace uses of rand() with fastRand() Oct 23, 2017
@jakesmith
Copy link
Member Author

Introduced fastRand() with coverity suppression comment.

@richardkchapman - please review.

@richardkchapman
Copy link
Member

The one coverity was complaining about specifically (on this occasion) was in datest.cpp, but does not appear to have been addressed here?

Coverity can warn of an unsafe usage of rand(), where we want
a fast random call and know it's in a safe context explicitly use
one.
With an initial implementation that simply wraps rand() with a
coverity comment to suppress the WEAK_CRYPTO Coverity warning.

Signed-off-by: Jake Smith <jake.smith@lexisnexisrisk.com>
@jakesmith
Copy link
Member Author

@richardkchapman - pushed wrong commit, re-pushed.

@HPCCSmoketest
Copy link
Contributor

Automated Smoketest: ✅
Sha: f9e38f2
Build: success
Build: success
ECL Watch: Rebuilding Site

errors warnings build time
0 75 43.899 seconds

Install hpccsystems-platform-community_6.5.0-trunk0.el7.x86_64.rpm
HPCC Start: OK

Unit tests result:

Test total passed failed errors timeout
unittest 101 101 0 0
wutoolTest(Dali) 19 19 0 0 0
wutoolTest(Cassandra) 19 19 0 0 0

Regression test result:

phase total pass fail
setup (hthor) 11 11 0
setup (thor) 11 11 0
setup (roxie) 11 11 0
test (hthor) 744 744 0
test (thor) 639 639 0
test (roxie) 772 772 0

HPCC Stop: OK
HPCC Uninstall: OK

@richardkchapman richardkchapman merged commit 3029a2e into hpcc-systems:master Oct 24, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
4 participants