[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 10:29:16 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>, linux-input <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] Remove false-positive VLAs when using max()
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 4:47 AM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com> 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
[-Werror=vla-larger-than=]
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".
Linus
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.
