From: Daniel Borkmann
> Sent: 11 August 2017 17:47
> On 08/09/2017 10:34 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > On 08/09/2017 09:39 AM, James Hogan wrote:
> > [...]
> >> time (but please consider looking at the other patch which is certainly
> >> a more real issue).
> >
> > Sorry for the delay, started looking into that and whether we
> > have some other options, I'll get back to you on this.
>
> Could we solve this more generically (as in: originally intended) in
> the sense that we don't need to trust the gcc va_list handling; I feel
> this is relying on an implementation detail? Perhaps something like
> below poc patch?
That patch still has 'cond ? arg : cond1 ? (long)arg : (u32)arg' so
probably has the same warning as the original version.
The va_list handling is defined by the relevant ABI, not gcc.
It is ok on x86-64 because all 32bit values are extended to 64bits
before being passed as arguments (either in registers, or on the stack).
Nothing in the C language requires that, so other 64bit architectures
could pass 32bit values in 4 bytes of stack.
David
