Hi Nada,
Apologies for not being able to reply earlier as well. I’m glad to hear
you’re interested in continuing this project! There is still a lot of work
to be done — my work from last summer is in a very prototype stage. As
David mentioned, familiarizing myself with the analyzer took some time,
Am Mittwoch, dem 03.04.2024 um 13:46 -0500 schrieb Jonathon Anderson via Gcc:
> Hello all,
>
> On Wed, 2024-04-03 at 16:00 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> > > My take a way is that software needs to become less complex. Do
> > > we really still need complex build systems such as autoconf?
> >
> > (
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 19:36, Toon Moene wrote:
>
> On 4/3/24 20:25, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> > Note that the attack really didn't have anything to do with
> > compressing data. The library used an IFUNC to change the PLT of a
> > different function, so it effectively took control of the code t
On Apr 03 2024, Paul Floyd via Gcc wrote:
> On 03-04-24 14:32, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote:
>
>> The backdoor was hidden in a complicated autoconf script...
>
> How many uncomplicated autoconf scripts exist in the real world?
Probably the same amount as in any other build system. Building
(porta
Hello all,
On Wed, 2024-04-03 at 16:00 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> > My take a way is that software needs to become less complex. Do
> > we really still need complex build systems such as autoconf?
>
> (And, FWIW, testing for features isn't "complex". And have you looked at
> other build syste
On 4/3/24 20:25, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Note that the attack really didn't have anything to do with
compressing data. The library used an IFUNC to change the PLT of a
different function, so it effectively took control of the code that
verified the cryptographic key. The only part of the attac
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 11:05 AM Toon Moene wrote:
>
> Two questions arise (as far as I am concerned):
>
> 1. Do daemons like sshd *have* to be linked with shared libraries ?
> Or could it be left to the security minded of the downstream
> (binary) distributions to link it statically with k
> On Apr 3, 2024, at 2:04 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
>
> On 4/1/24 17:06, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
>> A big thanks to everybody working this long Easter weekend who helped
>> analyze the xz-backdoor and making sure the impact on Sourceware and
>> the hosted projects was minimal.
>
> Thanks for thos
On 4/1/24 17:06, Mark Wielaard wrote:
A big thanks to everybody working this long Easter weekend who helped
analyze the xz-backdoor and making sure the impact on Sourceware and
the hosted projects was minimal.
Thanks for those efforts !
Now, I have seen two more days of thinking about this vu
On 03-04-24 14:32, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote:
The backdoor was hidden in a complicated autoconf script...
How many uncomplicated autoconf scripts exist in the real world?
A+
Paul
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 15:34, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote:
> I ask a very specific question: To what extend is testing
> for features instead of semantic versions and/or supported
> standards still necessary? This seems like a problematic approach
> that may have been necessary decades ago, but i
On Apr 03 2024, Martin Uecker wrote:
> I ask a very specific question: To what extend is testing
> for features instead of semantic versions and/or supported
> standards still necessary? This seems like a problematic approach
> that may have been necessary decades ago, but it seems it may be
>
Am Mittwoch, dem 03.04.2024 um 18:02 +0200 schrieb Michael Matz:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> > The backdoor was hidden in a complicated autoconf script...
>
> Which itself had multiple layers and could just as well have been a
> complicated cmake function.
Don't m
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 11:03 AM Michael Matz via Gdb
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> > The backdoor was hidden in a complicated autoconf script...
>
> Which itself had multiple layers and could just as well have been a
> complicated cmake function.
>
> > > (And, F
Hello,
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024, Martin Uecker wrote:
> The backdoor was hidden in a complicated autoconf script...
Which itself had multiple layers and could just as well have been a
complicated cmake function.
> > (And, FWIW, testing for features isn't "complex". And have you looked at
> > other
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 9:35 AM Hanke Zhang via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I'm trying to get the default values for parameters of some functions
> in my GIMPLE-PASS. The example code is here:
>
> enum {
> edefault1 = 1,
> edefault2 = 2,
> edefault3 = 3
> }
>
> void func(int p0, int p1 = edefault1,
On 4/3/24 4:22 AM, Christophe Lyon via Gdb wrote:
> Dear release managers and developers,
>
> TL;DR: For the sake of improving precommit CI coverage and simplifying
> workflows, I’d like to request a patch submission policy change, so
> that we now include regenerated files. This was discussed dur
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 10:33 AM Martin Uecker via Gdb
wrote:
>
> Am Mittwoch, dem 03.04.2024 um 16:00 +0200 schrieb Michael Matz:
> > [...]
> > (And, FWIW, testing for features isn't "complex". And have you looked at
> > other build systems? I have, and none of them are less complex, just
> > op
On 4/3/24 8:04 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
"Florian" == Florian Weimer writes:
Florian> Everyone still pushes their own patches, and there are no
Florian> technical countermeasures in place to ensure that the pushed version is
Florian> the reviewed version.
This is a problem for gdb as well.
Pr
Am Mittwoch, dem 03.04.2024 um 16:00 +0200 schrieb Michael Matz:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote:
>
> > > > Seems reasonable, but note that it wouldn't make any difference to
> > > > this attack. The liblzma library was modified to corrupt the sshd
> > > > binary, wh
> On Apr 3, 2024, at 10:00 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote:
>
Seems reasonable, but note that it wouldn't make any difference to
this attack. The liblzma library was modified to corrupt the sshd
binary, when sshd was link
> "Florian" == Florian Weimer writes:
Florian> Everyone still pushes their own patches, and there are no
Florian> technical countermeasures in place to ensure that the pushed version is
Florian> the reviewed version.
This is a problem for gdb as well.
Probably we should switch to some kind
Hello,
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote:
> > > Seems reasonable, but note that it wouldn't make any difference to
> > > this attack. The liblzma library was modified to corrupt the sshd
> > > binary, when sshd was linked against liblzma. The actual attack
> > > occurred via a con
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024, 3:09 AM Florian Weimer via Gdb
wrote:
> * Guinevere Larsen via Overseers:
>
> > Beyond that, we (GDB) are already experimenting with approved-by, and
> > I think glibc was doing the same.
>
> The glibc project uses Reviewed-by:, but it's completely unrelated to
> this. Every
Hi,
I'm trying to get the default values for parameters of some functions
in my GIMPLE-PASS. The example code is here:
enum {
edefault1 = 1,
edefault2 = 2,
edefault3 = 3
}
void func(int p0, int p1 = edefault1, int p2 = edefault2, int p3 = edefault3) {
// do other things
}
I want to get t
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 14:59, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> Another possible issue which may be better now than in years past
> is that the versions of autoconf/automake required often had to be
> installed by hand. I think newlib has gotten better but before the
> rework on its Makefile/configure, I ha
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 12:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 03.04.2024 10:57, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Apr 2024, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 03.04.2024 10:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Any concerns/objections?
> >>>
> >>
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 10:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 03.04.2024 10:22, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > Dear release managers and developers,
> >
> > TL;DR: For the sake of improving precommit CI coverage and simplifying
> > workflows, I’d like to request a patch submission policy change, so
> > that
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 6:23 AM Jan Beulich via Gcc wrote:
> On 03.04.2024 10:57, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Apr 2024, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 03.04.2024 10:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Any concerns/objections?
>
Another possible issue which may be better now than in years past
is that the versions of autoconf/automake required often had to be
installed by hand. I think newlib has gotten better but before the
rework on its Makefile/configure, I had a special install of autotools
which precisely matched what
On 03.04.2024 10:57, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 03.04.2024 10:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Any concerns/objections?
>>>
>>> I'm all for it, in fact I've been sending it like that myself f
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 09:46, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > Any concerns/objections?
>
> I'm all for it, in fact I've been sending it like that myself for years
> even when the policy said not to. In most cases, the diff for t
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 03.04.2024 10:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >> Any concerns/objections?
> >
> > I'm all for it, in fact I've been sending it like that myself for years
> > even when the policy said not t
On 03.04.2024 10:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> Any concerns/objections?
>
> I'm all for it, in fact I've been sending it like that myself for years
> even when the policy said not to. In most cases, the diff for the
> regenerated fi
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Any concerns/objections?
I'm all for it, in fact I've been sending it like that myself for years
even when the policy said not to. In most cases, the diff for the
regenerated files is very small and it helps even in patch review t
On 03.04.2024 10:22, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Dear release managers and developers,
>
> TL;DR: For the sake of improving precommit CI coverage and simplifying
> workflows, I’d like to request a patch submission policy change, so
> that we now include regenerated files. This was discussed during th
Dear release managers and developers,
TL;DR: For the sake of improving precommit CI coverage and simplifying
workflows, I’d like to request a patch submission policy change, so
that we now include regenerated files. This was discussed during the
last GNU toolchain office hours meeting [1] (2024-03
* Guinevere Larsen via Overseers:
> Beyond that, we (GDB) are already experimenting with approved-by, and
> I think glibc was doing the same.
The glibc project uses Reviewed-by:, but it's completely unrelated to
this. Everyone still pushes their own patches, and there are no
technical countermea
38 matches
Mail list logo
