-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 116
improve performance and reduce allocations of UUID methods #96
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why not make
Parse()
delegate toUnmarshalText()
or vice versa? The conversion fromstring
to[]byte
or[]byte
tostring
is almost always optimized out by the compiler and this is non-trivial code to be duplicating.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In some cases this is true and the runtime can stack allocate or use a temp buffer for the
string
to[]byte
conversion (see:stringtoslicebyte()
), but that is not true here since([]byte)(s)
escapes to heap (you can check this by making the suggested change and runninggo build -i -gcflags='-m'
).TLDR: delegating to
UnmarshalText
would require an allocation and a copy.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Additionally, delegating to
UnmarshalText
could be DOS vector if this was used to parse untrusted input (a malicious actor could pass very large "UUID" causing the application to allocate large amounts of memory).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My concern is that this is a fairly complex block of code that's identical to
UnmarshalText()
other than one processesstring
and the other[]byte
. It would be better in the long run to not have the duplication. What's the result ifUnmarshalText()
delegates toParse()
instead?Also, since the logic is the same, any DOS vector in
UnmarshalText()
exists here as well. Looking at the code, though, neither path allocates memory based on the input. Each loops over 32 characters of the input data after cleaning up "decorations" like braces, etc. and writes to corresponding locations in the already-allocated[16]byte
that is the underlying value of theUUID
type.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't like the duplication either, but this is the only way to do this without allocating. The fact that we have 100% test coverage considerably alleviates these concerns IMO. In the long run this could be replaced by a generic function that takes both strings and byte slices, but that should only be done once Go 1.17 is no longer in wide use.
Same result and same issues around creating a copy of untrusted input.
The DOS vector only exists if we delegate the call to
UnmarshalText/Parse
fromParse/UnmarshalText
and have to allocate to create a copy of untrusted input.