[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191001185730.GM29696@kadam>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 21:58:55 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Denis Efremov <efremov@...ux.com>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
"devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Bastien Nocera <hadess@...ess.net>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: hal: Fix memcpy calls
On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 06:13:21PM +0300, Denis Efremov wrote:
> Just found an official documentation to this issue:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/porting_to.html
> "Null pointer checks may be optimized away more aggressively
> ...
> The pointers passed to memmove (and similar functions in <string.h>) must be non-null
> even when nbytes==0, so GCC can use that information to remove the check after the
> memmove call. Calling copy(p, NULL, 0) can therefore deference a null pointer and crash."
>
Correct. In glibc those functions are annotated as non-NULL.
extern void *memcpy (void *__restrict __dest, const void *__restrict __src,
size_t __n) __THROW __nonnull ((1, 2));
We aren't going to do that in the kernel. A second difference is that
in the kernel we use -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks so it doesn't
delete the NULL checks.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists