`fiopen` handling of non-standard flags

[FrankHB]

The implementation strategy in https://github.com/microsoft/STL/blob/main/stl/src/fiopen.cpp is quite unnatrual, which leaves to problems for non-standard flags, even the expect behaviors are not well-documented.

What does ios_base::_Nocreate exactly mean?

By

STL/stl/src/fiopen.cpp

Line 52 in cc515bb

mode |= ios_base::in; // file must exist

, ios_base::_Nocreate implies ios_base::in. But what happens for a write-only mode, i.e. ios_base::out or ios_base::app? Is it the tradition meaning of "nocreate" in this case?

TOCTTOU issue on handling io_base::_Noreplace

This one seems a real bug. Between

STL/stl/src/fiopen.cpp

Line 71 in cc515bb

&& (fp = _Xfsopen(filename, 0, prot)) != nullptr) { // file must not exist, close and fail

and

STL/stl/src/fiopen.cpp

Line 80 in cc515bb

if ((fp = _Xfsopen(filename, n, prot)) == nullptr) {

, if a file named by filename is created, the check is voided, so the flag is useless in this case. It looks like the same to the infamous anti-pattern of multiple calls to POSIX open to make sure the exclusive open-and-create semantics. The idiomatic correct way is using O_CREAT | O_EXCL in a single call, to enforce the atomicity.

Related implementation question

The concerned functions are implemented by the stdio extension function _fsopen. Why not use lowio (i.e. _wsopen) instead? This can easily resolve the correctness problems mentioned above, and it could be a bit more efficient due to the simpler mode translation and parsing (in the underlying implementation; once you have the implementation-specific knowledge, it seems not difficult to bypass the redundant passing like __acrt_stdio_parse_mode in _wfdopen) even if an object referenced by FILE* is still needed to be created later.

If lowio is not an appropriate choice for some coding policies I don't know, is it considerable to use C11-style "x" modes in

STL/stl/src/fiopen.cpp

Line 14 in cc515bb

"r", "w", "w", "a", "rb", "wb", "wb", "ab", "r+", "w+", "a+", "r+b", "w+b", "a+b", nullptr};

?

[frederick-vs-ja]

This is probably fixed by #3065.

[StephanTLavavej]

Nothing passes _Nocreate so we should remove it in vNext and investigate the other questions here.

[frederick-vs-ja]

@FrankHB

Perhaps _Noreplace was broken before but it's probably fixed by #3065 by using C11 "x" mode in fopen (with the addition of C++23 noreplace), unless UCRT's fopen is broken.

Per the following line:

STL/stl/src/fiopen.cpp

Line 64 in be81252

mode &= ~(ios_base::ate | ios_base::_Nocreate);

I believe MSVC STL's ios_base::_Nocreate is not only implying ios_base::in, but also equivalent to it. So it doesn't mean any non-standardized "traditional meaning".

@StephanTLavavej

As we removed ios_base::hexfloat before (#4345), I think we can remove _Nocreate from <xiosbase> before vNext. Although we may need to preserve the related logic in fiopen.cpp for ABI compatibility.