On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 10:22:42AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 10:28:20AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> > But, using type attributes we have much more flexibility. Hence, the
> > proposed "wraps" attribute:
> > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86618
>
> So I stil
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 10:19:15AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 12:17:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 04:23:31PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 12:08:21AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 12:01:19P
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 10:28:20AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> But, using type attributes we have much more flexibility. Hence, the
> proposed "wraps" attribute:
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86618
So I still think that's going about things backwards.
unsigned explicitly wraps. signe
On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 06:09:07PM +0200, Martin Uecker wrote:
> Am Freitag, dem 14.06.2024 um 12:17 +0200 schrieb Peter Zijlstra:
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 04:23:31PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 12:08:21AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 12:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 12:17:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 04:23:31PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 12:08:21AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 12:01:19PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > I'm happy to take patches. And fo
Am Freitag, dem 14.06.2024 um 12:17 +0200 schrieb Peter Zijlstra:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 04:23:31PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 12:08:21AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 12:01:19PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > I'm happy to take patches. And
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 04:23:31PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 12:08:21AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 12:01:19PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > I'm happy to take patches. And for this bikeshed, this would be better
> > > named under the size_*() hel
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 12:08:21AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 12:01:19PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > I'm happy to take patches. And for this bikeshed, this would be better
> > named under the size_*() helpers which are trying to keep size_t
> > calculations from overflow
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 12:01:19PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 09:55:42AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 02:46:09PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >
> > > > I really detest this thing because it makes what was trivially readable
> > > > into something opa
On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 09:55:42AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 02:46:09PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> > > I really detest this thing because it makes what was trivially readable
> > > into something opaque. Get me that type qualifier that traps on overflow
> > > and writ
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 02:46:09PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > I really detest this thing because it makes what was trivially readable
> > into something opaque. Get me that type qualifier that traps on overflow
> > and write plain C. All this __builtin_overflow garbage is just that,
> > unreadabl
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 10:05:44PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 10:28:52AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 01, 2024 at 06:56:15PM +0200, Erick Archer wrote:
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > This is an effort to get rid of all multiplications from allocation
> > > fu
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 10:28:52AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 01, 2024 at 06:56:15PM +0200, Erick Archer wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > This is an effort to get rid of all multiplications from allocation
> > functions in order to prevent integer overflows [1][2].
>
> I didn't actually
On Sat, Jun 01, 2024 at 06:56:15PM +0200, Erick Archer wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> This is an effort to get rid of all multiplications from allocation
> functions in order to prevent integer overflows [1][2].
I didn't actually see these 3 patches in this thread nor via lore.
> In the first patch,
On Sat, Jun 08, 2024 at 10:50:44AM +0200, Erick Archer wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Sat, Jun 01, 2024 at 06:56:15PM +0200, Erick Archer wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > This is an effort to get rid of all multiplications from allocation
> > functions in order to prevent integer overflows [1][2].
> >
Hi Andrew,
On Sat, Jun 01, 2024 at 06:56:15PM +0200, Erick Archer wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> This is an effort to get rid of all multiplications from allocation
> functions in order to prevent integer overflows [1][2].
>
> In the first patch, the "struct amd_uncore_ctx" can be refactored to
> use
Hi everyone,
This is an effort to get rid of all multiplications from allocation
functions in order to prevent integer overflows [1][2].
In the first patch, the "struct amd_uncore_ctx" can be refactored to
use a flex array for the "events" member. This way, the allocation/
freeing of the memory c
17 matches
Mail list logo