[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191021193652.lfccehm37dkkofp7@wittgenstein>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 21:36:53 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, linux@...musvillemoes.dk,
cyphar@...har.com, keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Oct 18 (objtool)
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 03:47:59PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 03:19:48PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 03:11:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > By popular request; here's that alternative. Completely untested :-)
> >
> > Am I not getting some mails? :)
>
> You're not on the 'right' IRC channels :-)
Well, we saw that that wasn't true today. :)
>
> > I prefer this one as it allows us to avoid working around this in
> > usercopy.c. Should especially make if this potentially helps in other
> > cases as well?
>
> That was Josh's argument too.
>
> Personally I think GCC is being a moron here, because with value range
> analysis it should be able to prove the shift-UB cannot happen (the <
> sizeof(unsigned long) conditions on both), but alas, it emits the UBSAN
> calls anyway.
Ok, so I take it you route that patch somehwere through tip?
I'm happy with the ubsan fix:
Acked-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists