This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of WP status.
submdspan
preconditions do not forbid creating invalid pointerSection: 23.7.3.7.7 [mdspan.sub.sub] Status: WP Submitter: Mark Hoemmen Opened: 2024-03-26 Last modified: 2024-07-08
Priority: Not Prioritized
View all issues with WP status.
Discussion:
Oliver Lee and Ryan Wooster pointed out to us that creating a submdspan
with zero-length
tuple-like
or strided_slice
slice specifiers at the upper extent can cause
the Standard submdspan_mapping
overloads to access the input mdspan
's mapping
out of bounds.
This happens in the following line of specification (23.7.3.7.6 [mdspan.sub.map] p8 in
N4971 moved to [mdspan.sub.map.common] p8 after the merge of
P2642R6).
Let
offset
be a value of typesize_t
equal to(*this)(first_<index_type, P>(slices...)...)
.
If data_handle_type
is a pointer to an array, then the resulting offset can be larger than
required_span_size()
, thus making the pointer invalid (not just one past the end). In a
constexpr context, the result is ill-formed. With the reference
mdspan
implementation, Clang can actually report a build error (e.g., for out-of-bounds access
to a std::array
). The contributed example illustrates this.
Example 1:
auto x = std::array<int, 3>{}; auto A = mdspan{x.data(), extents{3}}; auto B = submdspan(A, pair{3, 3});B is an
Example 2:mdspan
with zero elements.auto y = std::array<int, 9>{}; auto C = mdspan{y.data(), extents{3, 3}}; auto D = submdspan(C, pair{3, 3}, pair{3, 3});A precondition for each slice specifier is (23.7.3.7.5 [mdspan.sub.extents]):
0 ≤ first_<index_type, k>(slices...) ≤ last_<k>(src.extents(), slices...) ≤ src.extent(k).Our understanding is that precondition is satisfied. In the second example,
However, the submapping offset is defined asfirst_<0>
is 3 andfirst_<1>
is also 3.(*this)(first_<index_type, P>(slices...)...)
, which then can result in an invalid data handle of thesubmdspan
, even if the data handle is never accessed/dereferenced. godbolt demo
We expect this situation to come up in practice.
Suppose we have anN x N
mdspan representing a matrix A
, and we want to partition it
into a 2 x 2
"matrix of matrices" (also called a "block matrix"). This partitioning is a
common operation in linear algebra algorithms such as matrix factorizations.
Examples of this 2 x 2
partitioning appear in P2642 and P1673.
mdspan A{A_ptr, N, N}; size_t p = partition_point(N); // integer in 0, 1, …, N (inclusive) auto A_00 = submdspan(A, tuple{0, p}, tuple{0, p}); auto A_10 = submdspan(A, tuple{p, N}, tuple{0, 0}); auto A_01 = submdspan(A, tuple{0, p}, tuple{p, N}); auto A_11 = submdspan(A, tuple{p, N}, tuple{p, N});
Table illustrating the resulting 2 x 2
block matrix follows:
A_00 |
A_01 |
A_10 |
A_11 |
It's valid for p
to be 0
. That makes every block but A_11
have zero size.
Thus, it should also be valid for p
to be N
. That makes every block but
A_00
have zero size. However, that leads to the aforementioned UB.
first_
or last_
. The definitions of
first_
and last_
are meant to turn the slice specifier into a pair of bounds.
Since submdspan(A, tuple{p, N}, tuple{p, N})
is valid even if p
equals N
,
then that strongly suggests that first_<0>
and first_<1>
should always be p
, even if p
equals N
.
As a result, we find ourselves needing to change submdspan_mapping
. This will affect both
the Standard submdspan_mapping
overloads, and any custom (user-defined) overloads.
[2024-05-08; Reflector poll]
Set status to Tentatively Ready after five votes in favour during reflector poll.
[St. Louis 2024-06-29; Status changed: Voting → WP.]
Proposed resolution:
This wording is relative to N4971 after the merge of P2642R6.
Modify the new 23.7.3.7.6.1 [mdspan.sub.map.common] as indicated:
-8- If
first_<index_type, k>(slices...)
equalsextents().extent(k)
for any rank indexk
ofextents()
, then lLetoffset
be a value of typesize_t
equal to(*this).required_span_size()
. Otherwise, letoffset
be a value of typesize_t
equal to(*this)(first_<index_type, P>(slices...)...)
.
Modify 23.7.3.7.7 [mdspan.sub.sub] as indicated:
As a drive-by readability fix, we also propose changing a variable name in paragraph 6 as indicated below.
template<class ElementType, class Extents, class LayoutPolicy, class AccessorPolicy, class... SliceSpecifiers> constexpr auto submdspan( const mdspan<ElementType, Extents, LayoutPolicy, AccessorPolicy>& src, SliceSpecifiers... slices) -> see below;-1- Let
-2- Letindex_type
betypename Extents::index_type
.sub_map_offset
be the result ofsubmdspan_mapping(src.mapping(), slices...)
. […] -3- Constraints: […] -4- Mandates: […] -5-Preconditions: […] -6- Effects: Equivalent to:auto sub_map_resultoffset= submdspan_mapping(src.mapping(), slices...); return mdspan(src.accessor().offset(src.data(), sub_map_resultoffset.offset), sub_map_resultoffset.mapping, AccessorPolicy::offset_policy(src.accessor()));