[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202009171516.6543C7649@keescook>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:17:04 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: George Popescu <georgepope@...gle.com>
Cc: maz@...nel.org, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
masahiroy@...nel.org, michal.lkml@...kovi.net,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com, james.morse@....com,
julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com, suzuki.poulose@....com,
natechancellor@...il.com, ndesaulniers@...gle.com,
dbrazdil@...gle.com, broonie@...nel.org, maskray@...gle.com,
ascull@...gle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dvyukov@...gle.com,
elver@...gle.com, tglx@...utronix.de, arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/14] Fix CFLAGS for UBSAN_BOUNDS on Clang
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 10:24:58AM +0000, George Popescu wrote:
> This would mean losing the local-bounds coverage. I tried to test it without
> local-bounds and with a locally defined array on the stack and it works fine
> (the handler is called and the error reported). For me it feels like
> --array-bounds and --local-bounds are triggered for the same type of
> undefined_behaviours but they are handling them different.
Er, if --array-bounds still works on local arrays, what does
local-bounds actually do? >_> :P If we don't have a reduction in
coverage, yeah, I'm fine to turn that off.
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists