linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] riscv: eliminate unreliable __builtin_frame

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87tudz5llo.fsf@igel.home>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jan 2022 00:53:07 +0100
From:   Andreas Schwab <schwab@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@...c27.com>
Cc:     Changbin Du <changbin.du@...il.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: eliminate unreliable __builtin_frame_address(1)

On Jan 19 2022, Jessica Clarke wrote:

> What’s your point?

LLVM doesn't have to deal with the extra complexity.

> doesn’t mean other toolchains that do need that to be correct should
> just do something wrong.

__builtin_frame_address with count > 0 is considered bad.  Nobody should
use it.

You don't have to be arrogant.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@...ux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510  2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
"And now for something completely different."