[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 09:46:16 +1100
From: "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>,
Linux Btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] kernel.h: Skip single-eval logic on literals in
min()/max()
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 01:10:30PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > When max() is used in stack array size calculations from literal values
> > (e.g. "char foo[max(sizeof(struct1), sizeof(struct2))]", the compiler
> > thinks this is a dynamic calculation due to the single-eval logic, which
> > is not needed in the literal case. This change removes several accidental
> > stack VLAs from an x86 allmodconfig build:
>
> Ok, looks good.
>
> I just have a couple of questions about applying it.
>
> In particular, if this will help people working on getting rid of
> VLA's in the short term, I can apply it directly. But if people who
> are looking at it (anybody else than Kees?) don't much care, then this
> might be a 4.17 thing or at least "random -mm queue"?
It's easy enough to work on the other VLA removals without basing on
this, no rush.
thanks,
Tobin.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
