On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 13:18:17 -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> The current message for telling the user that their compiler does not
> support the counted_by attribute in the FAM_BOUNDS test does not make
> much sense either grammatically or semantically. Fix it to make it
> correct in both aspects
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:04:08 +, Justin Stitt wrote:
> strncpy() is deprecated for use on NUL-terminated destination strings
> [1] and as such we should prefer more robust and less ambiguous string
> interfaces.
>
> There is a _nearly_ identical implementation of fill_psinfo present in
> binfmt
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 11:43:41PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Given that this particular issue would just disappear if the compiler
> would just insert a BRK after the BL, I'd prefer to explore first
> whether we can get this fixed on the compiler side.
Arm32 doesn't have a BRK instruction. Wh
me,
---
base-commit: 241590e5a1d1b6219c8d3045c167f2fbcc076cbb
change-id: 20240321-strncpy-fs-hfsplus-xattr-c-4ebfe67f4c6d
Best regards,
--
Justin Stitt
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 at 12:24, Russell King (Oracle)
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 10:22:30AM +, David Laight wrote:
> > How aggressively does the compiler optimise 'noreturn' functions?
>
> I've seen cases where the compiler emits a BL instruction as the very
> last thing in the function,
pr_expected_config(CONFIG_UBSAN_TRAP);
---
base-commit: 8d8b79685237b15f4bb676781f6bf241beb068a8
change-id: 20240321-lkdtm-improve-lack-of-counted_by-msg-d3b9006bd6e3
Best regards,
this %s was built with a
compiler that does not support __counted_by\n",
lkdtm_kernel_info);
else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS))
pr_expected_config(CONFIG_UBSAN_TRAP);
---
base-commit: 8d8b79685237b15f4bb676781f6bf241beb068a8
change-id:
_comm (thanks Eric)
- Link to v1:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240321-strncpy-fs-binfmt_elf_fdpic-c-v1-1-fdde26c89...@google.com
---
Note: build-tested only.
Found with: $ rg "strncpy\("
---
fs/binfmt_elf_fdpic.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/binfmt_e
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 9:23 AM Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> I am perplexed. Why not use get_task_comm fill_psinfo like binfmt_elf
> does?
>
> It seems very silly to copy half the function without locking and then
> not copy it's locking as well.
>
> Given that the more highly tested binfmt_
Justin Stitt writes:
> strncpy() is deprecated for use on NUL-terminated destination strings
> [1] and as such we should prefer more robust and less ambiguous string
> interfaces.
>
> In every other location psinfo->pr_fname is used, it's with strscpy_pad.
> It's clear that this field needs to be
On 3/21/24 07:58, Mimi Zohar wrote:
On Wed, 2024-03-20 at 22:11 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
-Wflex-array-member-not-at-end is coming in GCC-14, and we are getting
ready to enable it globally.
There is currently an object (`hdr)` in `struct ima_max_digest_data`
that contains a flexible
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 03:20:57PM +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Russell King
> > Sent: 21 March 2024 14:56
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 02:37:28PM +, David Laight wrote:
> > > From: Russell King
> > > > Sent: 21 March 2024 13:08
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 12:57:07PM +
From: Russell King
> Sent: 21 March 2024 14:56
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 02:37:28PM +, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Russell King
> > > Sent: 21 March 2024 13:08
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 12:57:07PM +, David Laight wrote:
> > > > From: Russell King
> > > > > Sent: 21 March 2024
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 02:37:28PM +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Russell King
> > Sent: 21 March 2024 13:08
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 12:57:07PM +, David Laight wrote:
> > > From: Russell King
> > > > Sent: 21 March 2024 12:23
> > > ...
> > > > > That might mean you can get the BL i
From: Russell King
> Sent: 21 March 2024 13:08
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 12:57:07PM +, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Russell King
> > > Sent: 21 March 2024 12:23
> > ...
> > > > That might mean you can get the BL in the middle of a function
> > > > but where the following instruction is for
On Wed, 2024-03-20 at 22:11 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> -Wflex-array-member-not-at-end is coming in GCC-14, and we are getting
> ready to enable it globally.
>
> There is currently an object (`hdr)` in `struct ima_max_digest_data`
> that contains a flexible structure (`struct ima_digest_da
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 12:57:07PM +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Russell King
> > Sent: 21 March 2024 12:23
> ...
> > > That might mean you can get the BL in the middle of a function
> > > but where the following instruction is for the 'no stack frame'
> > > side of the branch.
> > > That is v
From: Russell King
> Sent: 21 March 2024 12:23
...
> > That might mean you can get the BL in the middle of a function
> > but where the following instruction is for the 'no stack frame'
> > side of the branch.
> > That is very likely to break any stack offset calculations.
>
> No it can't. At any
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 12:07:51PM +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Russell King
> > Sent: 21 March 2024 11:24
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 10:22:30AM +, David Laight wrote:
> > > How aggressively does the compiler optimise 'noreturn' functions?
> >
> > I've seen cases where the compiler
From: Russell King
> Sent: 21 March 2024 11:24
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 10:22:30AM +, David Laight wrote:
> > How aggressively does the compiler optimise 'noreturn' functions?
>
> I've seen cases where the compiler emits a BL instruction as the very
> last thing in the function, and nothin
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 10:22:30AM +, David Laight wrote:
> How aggressively does the compiler optimise 'noreturn' functions?
I've seen cases where the compiler emits a BL instruction as the very
last thing in the function, and nothing after it.
This is where the problem lies - because the li
How aggressively does the compiler optimise 'noreturn' functions?
Consider:
void f(...)
{
...
if () {
...
noreturn(...);
}
}
Without the noreturn() call it is a leaf function.
So the compiler doesn't need to save 'lr' on stack
(or the save co
On 2024/3/21 3:40, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 11:30:05PM +0800, Jiangfeng Xiao wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2024/3/20 16:45, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 11:44:38AM +0800, Jiangfeng Xiao wrote:
This is an off-by-one bug which is common in unwind
23 matches
Mail list logo
