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 10:29:16 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <>
To: Florian Weimer <>
Cc: Kees Cook <>, Andrew Morton <>, 
	Josh Poimboeuf <>, Rasmus Villemoes <>, 
	Randy Dunlap <>, Miguel Ojeda <>, 
	Ingo Molnar <>, David Laight <>, 
	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 4:47 AM, Florian Weimer <> wrote:
> If you want to catch stack frames which have unbounded size,
> -Werror=stack-usage=1000 or -Werror=vla-larger-than=1000 (with the constant
> adjusted as needed) might be the better approach.

No, we want to catch *variable* stack sizes.

Does "-Werror=vla-larger-than=0" perhaps work for that? No, because
the stupid compiler says that is "meaningless".

And no, using "-Werror=vla-larger-than=1" doesn't work either, because
the moronic compiler continues to think that "vla" is about the
_type_, not the code:

   t.c: In function ‘test’:
   t.c:6:6: error: argument to variable-length array is too large
     int array[(1,100)];

Gcc people are crazy.

Is there really no way to just say "shut up about the stupid _syntax_
issue that is entirely irrelevant, and give us the _code_ issue".


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.