Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 13:25:26 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <>
To: David Laight <>
Cc: Florian Weimer <>, Kees Cook <>, 
	Andrew Morton <>, Josh Poimboeuf <>, 
	Rasmus Villemoes <>, Randy Dunlap <>, 
	Miguel Ojeda <>, Ingo Molnar <>, 
	Ian Abbott <>, linux-input <>, 
	linux-btrfs <>, Network Development <>, 
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>, 
	Kernel Hardening <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] Remove false-positive VLAs when using max()

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:44 AM, David Laight <> wrote:
> I looked at the generated code for one of the constant sized VLA that
> the compiler barfed at.
> It seemed to subtract constants from %sp separately for the VLA.
> So it looks like the compiler treats them as VLA even though it
> knows the size.
> That is probably missing optimisation.

Looking at the code is definitely an option.

In fact, instead of depending on -Wvla, we could just make 'objtool'
warn about real variable-sized stack frames.

That said, if that "sizeof()" trick of Al's actually works with older
gcc versions too (it *should*, but it's not like
__builtin_choose_expr() and __builtin_constant_p() have well-defined
rules in the standard), that may just be the solution.

And if gcc ends up generating bad code for those "constant sized vlas"
anyway, then -Wvla would effectively warn about that code generation


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.