>>> On 17.10.13 at 17:45, Arjan van de Ven <ar...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > for me, the value of the feature overall is this range checking, not the > fixed size part. > for fixed size... the chance of the programmer getting it wrong is near > zero. > the chance of getting one of the checks wrong is much higher > (we've had cases of wrong sign in the checks, off by ones in the checks etc) > and that is what it was supposed to find. > If that's not possible due practical issues (like the inline case above but > more > the compiler practicalities).... removing the warning part entirely is > likely just better.
But it would at least cover the case where, for some pointer, someone mixes up sizeof(ptr) and sizeof(*ptr). So I think - it being cheap - the current constant size check could stay, ... > Having a runtime check for the case where the argument is not constant but > we know the buffer > size... is likely still clear value... cheap (perfect branch prediction > unless disaster hits!) > and the failure case is obviously the disaster case. ... and the non-constant case be taken care of at run time. That's precisely what the patch does. Jan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
