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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 02:07:19 +0800 From: YingChi Long <me@...lyc.cn> To: bp@...en8.de Cc: chang.seok.bae@...el.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, david.laight@...lab.com, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, me@...lyc.cn, mingo@...hat.com, ndesaulniers@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, x86@...nel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v3] x86/fpu: use _Alignof to avoid UB in TYPE_ALIGN > What does that paragraph have to do with fixing the kernel? The clang patch D133574 has been made to satisfy the requirements of WG14 N2350. Compiling the kernel with this patched clang allows me to test where type definitions are used in the kernel in the first argument of offsetof. > Is this patch going to be part of clang? If so, which version? Yes. Probably clang-16 because this patch is not landed to LLVM codebase currently. The kernel needs this patch to be successfully compiled, in order not to break the ability of LLVM mainline to compile the kernel, I am happy to not landing D133574 for now. > Does gcc need it too? Since WG14 N2350 is generally applied to the C standard, I feel that GCC should reject/fire a warning pointing out type definitions within offsetof. > If so, should a gcc bug be opened too? I'm not very familiar with the GCC community, but I thought it should be good to file a bug. Link: https://reviews.llvm.org/D133574
Powered by blists - more mailing lists