On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 10:56 AM Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 09:22:26AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 5:59 PM Kees Cook wrote:
> > >
> > > GCC really does not want to consider NULL (or near-NULL) addresses as
> > > valid, so calculations based off of NULL
On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 09:22:26AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 5:59 PM Kees Cook wrote:
> >
> > GCC really does not want to consider NULL (or near-NULL) addresses as
> > valid, so calculations based off of NULL end up getting range-tracked into
> > being an offset wthin a
On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 5:59 PM Kees Cook wrote:
>
> GCC really does not want to consider NULL (or near-NULL) addresses as
> valid, so calculations based off of NULL end up getting range-tracked into
> being an offset wthin a 0 byte array. It gets especially mad about this:
>
> if
GCC really does not want to consider NULL (or near-NULL) addresses as
valid, so calculations based off of NULL end up getting range-tracked into
being an offset wthin a 0 byte array. It gets especially mad about this:
if (vbios_str == NULL)
vbios_str += size
