[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+g97kaCimRd1euRdFNg1aNQFoaVV7V6PBPOA0P51=3xg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 12:04:50 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
Joe Stringer <joe@....org>,
Daniel Santos <daniel.santos@...ox.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>,
Sparse Mailing-list <linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
George Burgess <gbiv@...gle.com>,
James Y Knight <jyknight@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] compiler.h: give up __compiletime_assert_fallback()
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 9:15 AM, Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
>> Note that there are a few definitions of BUILD_BUG_ON that still use
>> this negative array size trick. Should that pattern be removed from
>> them as well? See:
>> * arch/x86/boot/boot.h#L33
>> * include/linux/build_bug.h#L66
>> * tools/include/linux/kernel.h#L38
>
> At this moment, -Wvla is the warning-3 level
> in scripts/Makefile.extrawarn.
We're down to a handful of VLA uses, but I don't think the negative
cases should matter since they're _intended_ to break a compile.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists