Peter?
On 13. Apr 2025, at 14:42, Thorsten Blum wrote:
> On 7. Apr 2025, at 20:20, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 12:32:07PM +0100, Thorsten Blum wrote:
>>> On 3. Mar 2025, at 19:44, Kees Cook wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 12:02:22AM +0100, Thorsten Blum wrote:
> Convert mux
Hi Peter,
On 7. Apr 2025, at 20:20, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 12:32:07PM +0100, Thorsten Blum wrote:
>> On 3. Mar 2025, at 19:44, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 12:02:22AM +0100, Thorsten Blum wrote:
Convert mux_control_ops to a flexible array member at the end
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 12:32:07PM +0100, Thorsten Blum wrote:
> On 3. Mar 2025, at 19:44, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 12:02:22AM +0100, Thorsten Blum wrote:
> >> Convert mux_control_ops to a flexible array member at the end of the
> >> mux_chip struct and add the __counted_by() co
Convert mux_control_ops to a flexible array member at the end of the
mux_chip struct and add the __counted_by() compiler attribute to
improve access bounds-checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS and
CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE.
Use struct_size() to calculate the number of bytes to allocate for a new
mux chip
On 3. Mar 2025, at 19:44, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 12:02:22AM +0100, Thorsten Blum wrote:
>> Convert mux_control_ops to a flexible array member at the end of the
>> mux_chip struct and add the __counted_by() compiler attribute to
>> improve access bounds-checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_
On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 05:31:57PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> This does look like a bug in the compiler, could you please file a bug
> against GCC on this?
Okay, thanks for taking a looking!
GCC: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119132
Clang: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issue
> On Mar 4, 2025, at 23:57, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 09:58:21AM +0100, Thorsten Blum wrote:
>> On 3. Mar 2025, at 19:44, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 12:02:22AM +0100, Thorsten Blum wrote:
Convert mux_control_ops to a flexible array member at the end of
> On Mar 4, 2025, at 23:57, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> #include
> #include
>
> struct foo {
>int count;
>int array[] __attribute__((__counted_by__(count)));
> };
>
> int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
>int num_elems = 2 + argc;
>
>struct foo *p = malloc(sizeof(*p) + num_elems *
On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 09:58:21AM +0100, Thorsten Blum wrote:
> On 3. Mar 2025, at 19:44, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 12:02:22AM +0100, Thorsten Blum wrote:
> >> Convert mux_control_ops to a flexible array member at the end of the
> >> mux_chip struct and add the __counted_by() co
On 3. Mar 2025, at 19:44, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 12:02:22AM +0100, Thorsten Blum wrote:
>> Convert mux_control_ops to a flexible array member at the end of the
>> mux_chip struct and add the __counted_by() compiler attribute to
>> improve access bounds-checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_
On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 12:02:22AM +0100, Thorsten Blum wrote:
> Convert mux_control_ops to a flexible array member at the end of the
> mux_chip struct and add the __counted_by() compiler attribute to
> improve access bounds-checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS and
> CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE.
>
> Use str
Convert mux_control_ops to a flexible array member at the end of the
mux_chip struct and add the __counted_by() compiler attribute to
improve access bounds-checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS and
CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE.
Use struct_size() to calculate the number of bytes to allocate for a new
mux chip
Convert mux_control_ops to a flexible array member at the end of the
mux_chip struct and add the __counted_by() compiler attribute to
improve access bounds-checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS and
CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE.
Use struct_size() to calculate the number of bytes to allocate for a new
mux chip
13 matches
Mail list logo
