[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202008171213.CBCFF5D67@keescook>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 12:15:20 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
Fangrui Song <maskray@...gle.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dávid Bolvanský <david.bolvansky@...il.com>,
Eli Friedman <efriedma@...cinc.com>,
"# 3.4.x" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
"Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@...log.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] lib/string.c: implement stpcpy
On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 11:36:49AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> That said, this libcall optimization/transformation (sprintf->stpcpy)
> does look useful to me. Kees, do you have thoughts on me providing
> the implementation without exposing it in a header vs using
> -fno-builtin-stpcpy? (I would need to add the missing EXPORT_SYMBOL,
> as pointed out by 0day bot and on the github thread). I don't care
> either way; I'd just like your input before sending a V+1. Maybe
> better to just not implement it and never implement it?
I think I would ultimately prefer -fno-builtin-stpcpy, but for now,
sure, an implementation without a header (and a biiig comment above it
detailing why and a reference to the bug) would be fine by me.
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists